Dismissed

Ponnam Ravichandra, A(2) v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Jan 2012CRLP/2090/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of a food adulteration case. The petitioner argued two-year delay rendered the second sample unfit. Court held inability to prove sample unfitness precluded interference and dismissed the petition but granted dispensation from presence for hearings.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing dismissed. Presence of petitioner before trial court dispensed with, to be represented by counsel.

Ponnam Ravichandra, A(2) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2090 of 2010

¶3

Date: 06.01.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Ponnam Ravichandra

¶6

…Petitioner-A2.

¶7

And

¶8

The State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶9

….Respondents.

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶11

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2090 of 2010

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard petitioner’s counsel Sri K.V. Subba Reddy and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶14

2. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the Criminal Case in C.C.1108 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Karimnagar. The petitioner herein is the 2^nd accused in the said case.

¶15

3. The offence alleged is one punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for allegedly selling adulterated toddy. The petitioner is stated to be the President of M/s. Geetha Parisramika Sahakara Sangam, Group No.2, Karimnagar District.

¶16

4. The complaint shows that the toddy sample was lifted from the toddy shop of A2 on 19-07-2005 and after obtaining the Analyst Report from the State Food Laboratory and after obtaining sanction, the complaint

¶17

was filed on 25-01-2008. The point raised is that because of the above delay of more than two years the petitioner’s valuable right to get the second sample analyzed under Section 13 (2) of the Act after receiving that notice has been denied to him and therefore the case should be quashed.

¶18

5. The petitioner has not filed a copy of the Analyst Report, but in the complaint, it is stated that the Food Analyst has opined that the toddy does not confirm to standards of alcohol content and total acidity, presumably, as prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. Sri Subba Reddy says that the 2^nd sample after a delay of more than two years must have become unfit for analysis and consequently he must be held to have been denied the right under Section 13 (2) of the Act and therefore, this petition should be quashed on that ground alone. It is true that the said contention sounds forceful but in my opinion it cannot be quashed.

¶19

6. It may be noted that Sri Subba Reddy has not been able to place any material before the Court to conclude that the second sample by reason of delay has become unfit for analysis. This Court cannot assume the role of a Food Analyst to conclude so. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Court should not interfere in the matter.

¶20

7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶21

Sri Subba Reddy, however, requested that the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court may be dispensed with for every date of hearing as he has a problem so that he can defend the matter by engaging a counsel who can represent him for every date of hearing. In the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that this relief can be granted. Accordingly the presence of the petitioner for every date of hearing before the trial Court is dispensed with and he can be represented by a counsel, but this is subject to the discretion of the trial Court to order his presence as and when it considers it necessary. It shall also be open for the petitioner to file a discharge petition before the trial Court, which can be disposed of by it.

¶22

_________________________ JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶23

Date: 06.01.2012. mrb

Ponnam Ravichandra, A(2) v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnam Ravichandra, A(2) v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Pratap, Vs P.Mohan Reddy

B. Subba Rao, Vs State of a.P., rep. by Inspector of Police

Buddula Tirupathi Rao, Vs Mukti Janardhan

M.Bhasker, Vs The State of A.P.

P.Narsimha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.B.Krishna Bharathi, Vs M/s Swarnadra Grafics