THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4237 of 2012
Date:23.07.2014
Between:
Koppula Veera Venkata Mutyala Rao and others . Petitioners.
AND The State of A.P., Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (Food Inspector Division – II, Krishna District, Machiliptatnam.) . Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4237 of 2012
ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash proceedings in STC No.59/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Kaikaluru, Krishna District.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as follows:-
3. Petitioners are A1 to A3 in the above referred STC No.59/2011 and they were charged with the offence under Section 7 (i), 2 (ia)(m) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ( herein after referred to as ‘PFA Act, 1954’). Food Inspector, Division-II, Krishna visited the shop of first petitioner and suspected stock of Nandini Good Life Cows Pure Milk Packs of 500 ml and purchased three such sealed tetra packs by paying money and thereafter, issued Form-VI-notice, informing first petitioner that the packs were purchased for analysis purpose and thereafter, he divided those three purchased sealed packs of toned milk into three equal parts and put them in separate three clean empty and dry plastic containers and sealed them, after following due procedure and sent one such sample in Form-VII to the Public Analyst and the Public Analyst through his report, dated 25-02-2010, informed that the sample does not confirm to the standards, thereby adulterated. The food Inspector, after obtaining sanction, filed the complaint after issuing notice under Section 13 (2) of PFA Act, 1954 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and challenging the same, present petition is filed.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Advocate for petitioners submitted that the notice under Section 13 (2) of PFA Act, 1954 was issued after almost a year after the date of purchase and the complaint is also filed long after the expiry of the shelf date.
He submitted that the tetra pack purchased by Food Inspector was manufactured on 10-12-2009 and the best before time is 90 days and the food inspector purchased the packs on 18-01-2010, but the complaint is filed on 20-12- 2010 and Section 13 (2) notice was issued on 24-01-2011 i.e., long after the shelf life depriving statutory right of the accused under Section 13 (2) of PFA Act, 1954. It is further submitted that Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is repealed by Food Safety and Standards Rules & Regulations, 2011 and on that ground also, the complaint is not maintainable. He further submitted that this Court in similar set of facts in Crl.P.No. No.3622/2005, dated 25-08- 2005, quashed proceedings holding that the accused has lost valuable right under Section 13 (2) of PFA Act, 1954. He further submitted that this Court in similar set of facts in Crl.P.No.4762/2006, dated 01-11-2006, also quashed proceedings. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have not filed any petition before the trial Court for sending the second sample for central laboratory and only if the analyst gave his opinion that the sample is not fit for analysis, the petitioners cannot complain infringement of right under Section 13 (2) of PFA Act, 1954.
6. I have perused the material papers filed along with the quash petition. The first petitioner is a retailer of the product, whereas the second & third petitioners are the manufactures of toned milk sealed packets. The Food Inspector purchased three 500 ml Tetra Pack Sealed Pouches of Nandini Good Life Cows Pure Milk from the first petitioner and served Form-VI-notice and divided the purchased product into three samples and sent one such sample to the analyst. After analysis, the analyst gave his opinion stating that sample does not confirm to the standards of Total Plate Count, therefore, it is adulterated. Analyst gave this opinion on 25-02-2010, but the complaint is filed on 20-12-2010 and notice under Section 13 (2) of PFA Act, 1954 has been issued on 24-01-2011. It is clear from the record that the shelf life of Milk Packs is only 90 days from the date of manufacturing. It is not in dispute that the product is manufactured on 10-12-2009 and therefore, its life expired after 10-03-2010. As seen from the complaint allegation, there is no indication that a preservative is added while dividing the samples. So by the date of Section 13 (2) notice, this sample lost its value and as rightly pointed out by advocate for petitioners, no useful purpose will be served, even if the accused requested the Court below to send the remaining sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. In a similar set of facts, this Court observed delay in issuance of statutory notice that too after the expiry of shelf time would amount to abuse of process of Court and quashed the proceedings. Relying on the judgments of this Court referred supra, I am of the view that this is a fit case to quash since continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of Court.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in STC No.59/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR Date:23.07.2014 mrb