Criminal Court quashed proceedings in a food adulteration case, allowing the petitioner's plea that notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not served and there was inordinate delay in filing the complaint, defeating the right to re-analysis.
Quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C. No.43 of 2006.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1901 of 2008
Dated:- 28.04.2010
Between: Madhula Arjuna Rao …Petitioner AND The State of A.P. and another …Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1901 of 2008
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.43 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Repalle, Guntur District.
Heard the learned counsel on record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Food Inspector lifted the samples on 12.05.2004 and the Public Analyst delivered his report on 29.05.2004. Written consent to launch prosecution against the petitioner / accused was obtained on 06.01.2005 and corrigendum orders on 30.06.2005 and finally, complaint was filed on 23.02.2005 and thus the valuable right to make a request to the Court to send the sample for re-analysis to the Central Food Laboratory has been defeated. His second submission is that notice within the period prescribed under Section 13(2)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, ‘the Act’) has not been served on the petitioner.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not dispute that notice, as required under Section 13(2) the Act, was not served on the petitioner.
This Court, by order dated 11.02.2008 in Criminal Petition
No.3087 of 2007, while considering the application of A-2 and A-3, allowed the petition quashing the proceedings against A-2 and A-3.
Since it is not in dispute that notice, as required under Section 13(2) of the Act, has not been served on the petitioner after filing complaint, and that samples were lifted on 12.05.2004 and the report of the Public Analyst was received on 29.05.2004 and the complaint was filed on 23.02.2006, it is clear that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and as such, it is clear that the valuable right of the accused to make a request to the Court to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory has been lost.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.43 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Repalle, Guntur District.
_______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
April 28, 2010 Bvv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be quashed due to non-service of notice under Section 13(2) and inordinate delay.
Whether the valuable right for the accused to request re-analysis of samples at the Central Food Laboratory has been defeated.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Madhula Arjuna Rao
The State of A.P.
B. Chandra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
