THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.13173 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.696 of 2003(old) C.C.No.989 of 2012 (old) and renumbered as C.C.No.480 of 2015(New) on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial District.

02. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.

Perused the record.

03. The brief facts of the case are that the Food Inspector, Division-I, Adilabad District, instituted prosecution under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (for short ‘the Act’) against the petitioner–accused No.2, alleging that he had supplied Double Filtered Groundnut Oil (AS Brand) to the accused No.1, which was manufactured by the accused No.4, represented by the accused No.3. The Food Inspector collected a sample of the said oil from the accused No.1 on 30.05.2001, and upon analysis by the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated, as per the Report dated 29.06.2001.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner–accused No.2 submitted that the alleged sample of oil was lifted by the Food Inspector on 30.05.2001, whereas the complaint came to be lodged only in the year 2003, thereby causing an inordinate delay of more than two years. It is contended that the shelf life of the said product is only six months, and due to the delay in launching prosecution, the petitioner has lost his valuable right to have the sample re-analysed by the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, since the natural consequence of such delay is decomposition of the sample, rendering it unfit for analysis. It is further submitted that the sample lifted from the shop of accused No.1 was in sealed packets containing the label particulars and that the petitioner, being only a supplier, had sold the product in the same condition in which it was purchased from accused Nos.3 and 4. Learned counsel also submitted that the criminal proceedings against the accused No.1 were already quashed by this Court vide Order dated 26.10.2004 passed in Criminal Petition No.764 of 2004 on the ground of delay, and that the present petitioner, who is the accused No.2, stands on the same footing as that of the accused No.1. Hence, he prayed that the same benefit be extended to the petitioner-accused No.2 by quashing the criminal proceedings.

05. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side, it is evident from the record that the shelf life of the product in question, which was offered for sale and from which the sample was drawn, is only six months. In the present case, the sample was admittedly collected on

30.05.2001, and the Analyst submitted his report on 29.06.2001. However, the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, was issued by the Assistant Food Controller on

04.07.2003, i.e. more than two years after the Analyst’s report.

07. Since the shelf life of the product is only six months, no useful purpose would be served in forwarding the second sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory after a lapse of more than two years from the expiry of its shelf life. Consequently, the petitioner-accused No.2 was prejudiced on account of the delay in lodging the complaint. Furthermore, the sample lifted from the shop of the accused No.1 was in sealed packets bearing label particular