HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION NO.27482 OF 2017

O R D E R:

The relief sought in the writ petition is as follows:

“….to issue an appropriate writ, or order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the C.C.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kamareddy, Nizamabad District and pass such other order or orders.”

2. Heard Mr.Vikram Poosarla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent No.1-State. Perused the material available on record.

3. It is the case of petitioner that, respondent No.2 lifted one of the products of the petitioner company i.e., Frooti Mango Drink 200 ml Tetra Pack, Lot No.E052C EPO 19987-R manufactured on 08.05.2010. The said sample has been sent to analysis on 20.05.2010 and it has been analysed by the expert vide its report dated 01.07.2010. The expert opined that the said sample does not confirm to the standards of the total plate count and therefore, it is adulterated.

4. Basing on the report a case has been filed on 23.12.2010 and the same is numbered as C.C.No.2 of 2011 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy which is questioned for continuation of the proceedings by the petitioner on the ground that the said sample has been analysed after expiry of its stipulated period. The lifted sample i.e., shelf life is six (6) months. The test was conducted on 01.07.2010. The prosecution initiated proceedings against the petitioner on 23.12.2010 i.e., after (46) days after expiry of shelf life of the lifted product and half a month after self analysis report.

5. The petitioner herein received the notice dated 08.01.2010 i.e., after (60) days of shelf life product. The Central Food Laboratory has given its report on 15.06.2011 i.e., after (220) days after the shelf life of product and almost (7) months after the State Food Laboratory analysis report.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution failed to follow the mandatory provisions as envisaged under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA Act). Moreover, the complaint was filed (2)

two months after expiry of shelf life product.

7. On 14.06.2024 this Court granted interim stay until further orders. In spite of that the respondent(s) have not taken any steps to vacate the interim stay granted in favour of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision between Marico Lts. & Ors. vs State of Delhi & Anr. wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that Food Adulteration Authority are duty bound to ensure that the valuable right conferred by Section 13(2) of the Act is not defeated due to inefficiency and ineptitude.

9. In the present case, the report of the analyst is the expiry of shelf period of the product as such it is not maintainable. In view thereof the complaint filed by the respondent(s) is quashed there under.

10. It is settled law that the Food Inspector in food adulteration case has to follow the mandatory provisions under the Food Adulteration Act in accordance to the rules and regulations mentioned therein. In the present case, the Food Inspector has clearly violated the terms and conditions without

1 2015 SCC Online Del 7162

following due process of law, filed the present calendar case vide C.C.No.2 of 2011 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy against the petitioner herein since the shelf life period of the product had expired even before initiation of the proceedings. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner are required to be quashed.

11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.2 of 2011 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J