conform to the standards of coliform count and is therefore adulterated. Even though the Public Analyst’s report was received few days after 28.02.2006, the Food Inspector, Kadapa (Witness No.1) sent detailed report to the Director, Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad on 21.06.2006 for further orders. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay between 28.02.2006 and 21.06.2006. While so, on 04.12.2006, the Food Inspector received letter dated 25.11.2006 from the Director and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad giving written consent for institution of prosecution against A-1 to A-3 for offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Thereafter, the Food Inspector filed charge sheet in the court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Proddatour on 02.02.2007. There is no explanation for the delay between 21.06.2006 to 25.11.2006 in office of the Director and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad for giving written consent. Again there is no explanation for the delay between 04.12.2006 and 02.02.2006 on the part of the Food Inspector, Kadapa for instituting the complaint in the lower court. It is only after 02.02.2007, the Food Inspector served copy of Public Analyst’s report to the accused. By the said date of service of Public Analyst’s report on the accused, shelf life of the sample product expired. Therefore, it is contended by the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 that valuable defence of the accused by way of sending the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory and to obtain second report on the sample, is lost because of the delay in institution of the case by the Food Inspector. No purpose will be served even if any of the accused exercises right to send second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and report because the sample will not be with the same composition by that date due to expiry of shelf life of the product. Thus, the proceedings in the lower court against the petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 cannot stand in the eye of law.
