ORDER :

This petition is filed by the petitioners – A2 and A3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against them in CC No.77 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu, Warangal District.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 25.08.2005 at 4.00 PM, the complainant i.e. Food Inspector, Division-III, Warangal District, along with his attender visited the shop of A1 i.e. M/s.Manikanta Cool Drinks D.No.1-124, Main Road, Mallampally Village & Mandal, Warangal District and purchased six sealed pet bottles of Kinley Club Soda for Rs.36/- and sent three bottles for analysis on 27.08.2005 along with Form – VII. On the basis of label declaration of the manufacturer, notice in Form – VI was sent to A3 -M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd., Moulali, Hyderabad. on 27.08.2005. A2 was the Quality Assuring Manager/ Nominee of A3. The Public Analyst vide report dated 04.10.2005 opined that the contents of the sample did not confirm to the standards of total plate count, Coliform count and contained E-coli, a pathogenic organism which was injurious to health and therefore, adulterated. The Director accorded consent for prosecution on 16.02.2006. The complaint was filed by the Food Inspector, Warangal District before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu, Warangal, on 28.03.2006 and cognizance was taken by the said Court against A1 to A3 for the offence under Sections 2(ia)(h) and 7(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘PFA Act’). Notice under Section 13 (2) was issued to the accused on 25.04.2006.

3. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint was filed after an unreasonable and unexplained delay of 7 months 3 days from the date of receipt of collection of sample on 25.08.2005, the shelf life of the beverage was only 2 ½ months from the date of packing and it lapsed even before issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act. As per Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act, the accused had right to make an application to the Court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of the report to get the sample of the article of the food analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. After lapse of 2 ½ months shelf life period, the product might not retain the specific qualities and standards prescribed. Even if the sample was analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, the correct standards could not be obtained, thus the right conferred on the accused under Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act became illusory and frustrated. The delay in serving the analyst’s report defeated the valuable right of the accused to send the remaining sample to the Central Food Laboratory. He further contended that A2 and A3 were impleaded only on the basis of label declaration as per the complaint which was wholly impermissible in law in view of specific provision under Section 14 (A) of the Act, without any material to establish the fact that the property in question was manufactured by the petitioners. It was not open to the respondent to implead the petitioners without ascertaining the details of manufacturer from the purchaser from whom the property in question was purchased. In the absence of any proof of purchase or to connect the petitioners as manufacturer, the prosecution against the petitioners was an abuse of process of law and the prosecution was liable to be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that A1 was convicted by the trial Court and there was a manufacturing defect in the product. Issuing notice was only a technical issue and prayed to permit the trial to be continued.

6. Perused the record. The record would disclose that the Food Inspector visited the shop of A1 on 25.08.2005 at 4.00 PM and purchased 6 sealed bottles of Kinley Club Soda for analysis and paid Rs.36/- towards its cost to A1 and served a notice in Form – VI on A1 and collected