Allowed

M.Balakrishnama Naidu, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC2 Aug 2012CRLP/9422/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed proceedings for food adulteration. The Court held that inordinate delay in issuing the Section 13(2) notice deprived the petitioner of proving the article’s purity via the Public Analyst’s report mechanism and purchasing records. Furthermore, the second sample from the Central Food Laboratory was deteriorated and unfit for analysis, m

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in STC No.393 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi were quashed.

M.Balakrishnama Naidu, Vs The State of A.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

Crl.P.No.9422 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings in STC No.393 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi.

¶5

2. I have heard Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶6

3. The Food Inspector seized a food article namely Chocolate Ice Cream from the deep freezer of the petitioner’s shop and drew sample from the said article on 27.12.2003. The sample was sent to the Analyst on 29.12.2003. The analyst report, dated 09.02.2004 and sanction order, dated 07.04.2005, were obtained and a complaint was filed against the petitioner/A-1 on 09.10.2006. The petitioner was served with notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Act’) read with Rule 9-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short, ‘the Rules’) on 18.11.2006 enclosing the copy of Analytical Report. The petitioner received the said notice on 20.11.2006. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Section 13(2) read with 13(2)(A) of the Act to send the second sample for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune, which was accepted by the Court, and sample was sent for analysis. The report, dated 15.01.2007, of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Pune was received by the Court, which indicated that the sample received was deteriorated and not fit for analysis.

¶7

4. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, due to inordinate delay in issuing notice

¶8

under Section 13(2) of the Act and Rule 9-B of the Rules, the petitioner lost the opportunity of proving before the Court his version that the food article was not adulterated. Further, as per Section 14 of the Act, by producing the bill, the petitioner could be able to prove that he purchased the food article in a sealed bag from A-2 to A-4, who are the producers/distributors, and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner is liable for any adulteration, if any. As per sub-section 3 of Section 13 of the Act, the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2-B) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub-section (1) of Section 13. The report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory revealed that the sample was in a highly deteriorated condition and it was not fit for analysis.

¶9

5. For the aforementioned reasons, if the prosecution is allowed to continue against the petitioner/A-1, it causes undue hardship to him and it is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, all the proceedings in STC No.393 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶10

____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J

¶11

02^nd August, 2012 AMD

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶13

Crl.P.No.9422 of 2009

¶14

Date: 02.08.2012

¶15

AMD