HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5025 OF 2014 Dated 13-8-2014 Between:
Maddi Srinivasa Rao.
And:
..Petitioner.
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5025 OF 2014 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash proceedings of the 3rd respondent in R.c.No.001/03081/2013 dated 15-3-2014 of Food Safety Designated Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, under the provisions of FSSA Act, 2006 on the ground the petitioner received analyst report only when he appeared before the court on receipt of summons in C.C.No.2 of 2014 on 3-2-2014. It is submitted that petitioner preferred appeal to the Designated Officer and the Designated Officer received it on 18-2-2014 and the same is within 30 days but the Designated Officer without considering the same dismissed the appeal on the ground that prosecution was already launched and that the notice sent to the petitioner under registered post was returned back. He further submitted that order of the appellate authority i.e., Designated Officer under the Act is illegal and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
I have perused the impugned order dated 15-3- 2014 in which the Designated Officer, Srikakulam dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that prosecution was already launched and the same is numbered as C.C.No.2 of 2014 and that the period of 30 days for preferring appeal under Section 46(4) of FSS Act is lapsed. These are the three reasons on which appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The first objection that launching of prosecution cannot be a ground to reject the appeal when the Act provides an appeal to the Designated Officer. The second ground is that since appeal is not filed within 30 days, the appellate authority held that it is barred by time. But, as seen from the appeal submitted to the appellate authority, it is clearly mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application that the petitioner received summons from the court on 30-1-2014 and that he attended the court on 3-2-2014 on which day, the court supplied copy of the charge sheet along with analyst report. When such a specific plea is taken that he has received analyst copy only on 3-2-2014, the appellate authority without examining the correctness of that statement dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal is not preferred within the period of limitation by considering the notice sent to the petitioner herein on 27-6-2013 though it was not served on the petitioner.
For these reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 15-3-2014 is liable to be set aside and that the matter must be remitted back to the appellate authority i.e., Designated Officer to enquire into the issue and consider the request of the petitioner to send the second sample as per the provisions of the Act, if the sample is still fit for analysis.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 13-8-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL PETITION No.5025 OF 2014 Dated 13-8-2014