The High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings for food adulteration despite a dispute over the second Public Analyst report. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously within six months.
Petition dismissed. Trial Court directed to conclude trial within six months.
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.
[32ee ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
cRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12638 OF 2014
Between:
AND
(R-2 impleaded as per Court Order dated 18.07.2023 in l.A.No.1/2023in Crl.P.No.12638/2014)
...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section482 ofCr.P-C prayingthat in thp circumstances stated in the Memorandumof Groundsof criminalPetition,the High court may be pleased to quash the c.c.No.Ss9 of 2012,on the file of Hon'ble Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Classat Kalwakurthy,Mahabubnagar District.
l.A. NO: 10F 2014(CRLPM P. NO: 13017 OF 201 4
Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the ltrlemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including the appearance of Accused Nos. 1 to 3, in c.c. No. 55912012, on the fite of Hon'bte Addt. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar District.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Leo Raj, Advocate for the Petitioner and of sri Vizarath Ali, the Assistant public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No..l .
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12638 of 2Ol4
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash proceedings against them in C.C.No.559 of 2Ol2 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kalwakurthy, Mahaboobnagar District (for short 'the trial Court'), registered for the offences under Sections 16(1-A)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity 'the Act').
On 09.06.2011 at about O3:45 PM., the Food Inspector inspected the premises of the petitioners M/s.Varsha Agencies and found 50 bottles (one litre capacity) Maa Mango Drinks and also found lO0 Lehar Carbonated Water bottles which are kept for sale for human consumption and suspected Maa Mango Drinks
1
2
and Lehar Carbonated water and purchased three bottles each and seized the said bottles and sent to the public Analyst for analysis. After causing analysis of the sample of Maa Mango drinks, the public Analyst vide report No.232 of 2O7l dated l&.o7.2oL1 opined that the said Maa Mango drinks contains excess Benzoic acid and found it is adulterated. Thereafter, obtained necessary consent under Seitio n 20 (ll of the Act and launched prosecution against the accused for selling adulterated Maa Mango drinks for the offences under Sections 16 (l_A) (i) and 16 (l) (a) (ii) of the Act.
3
07 . Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submitted that in the absence of second report which is necessar5r for adjudicating the matter, the petitioner had lost the
re
.,i
4
opportunity as contemplated under the law, to have second public Analyst report to prove his case as against the first report of the Public Analyst dated 78.07.2011. Therefore, contrary to the first Public Analyst report, the second report was not obtained due to lapses on the part of the prosecuting agency and the Court, which itself is sufficient to allow this Criminal petition and that the expiry period of the sample is six months and the second report cannot be obtained as the sample has been expired by now.
OB. On the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for the State-respondents contended that the first Public Analyst report is very clear that the sample is found to be adulterated and that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter has to be decided after conducting trial by the Court below and that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Sections 16(1-AXi) and 16(t)(a)(ii) of the Act and prayed this Court to dismiss the petition.
5
not the sample whichhas been collected by the prosecution agency. At this point oftime, it cannot be determined as to whom it is to be made accountablefor sendingthe wrongsample for second opinion. However,since the first Public Analyst report is availabte on the record,which is not disputed by the petitioner, is sufficient to conduct tria,l andupon examination of technical evidence coupled with theother evidenceand upon examining the prosecution witnesses, the trial Courtcan only come to the conclusion.
i 1 . With the abovedirections, this CriminalPetition is disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs'
4ffi
6
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications, if any pending, shall
also stand closed
SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT RE STRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION O FICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED:0810912023
ORDER
1$€ 5 TAr€
q -/
oJ 1 I JAI'I ?02t
]<br>j-
D l_i 1 '9
GRL.P.No .12638 of 20'l 4
DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS
q
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing of criminal proceedings is warranted due to the unavailability of a second Public Analyst report caused by sample discrepancy.
Whether the trial should be expedited considering the pending status of the Criminal Case since 2012.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B.Srinivasulu
K. Ramesh
M/s. Varsha Agencies
CavinKare Pvt. Limited
State of Telangana
The Food Safety Officer
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
