IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6191 OF 2012 Between:
R. Hanumantha Rao … Petitioner/Accused V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioners : Sri S. Appadhara Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6191 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in CC.No. 591 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally, Khammam district, for alleged offences punishable under section 16 (i) (a) (i) (7) (i) and 2 (ia) m of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner herein is a salesman and A-1 in the above CC and owner of the Firm A-2 and the manufacturers A-3 and A-4 have filed quash petitions separately before this Court and their petitions are allowed by orders dated 19/2/2008, 30/4/2010 and 17/6/2010. It is submitted that main ground urged for quashing is that notice required under section 13 (2) of the Act is issued belatedly and the accused have lost valuable right of getting sample re-analysed by Central Food Laboratory, and therefore, proceedings are to be quashed. He further submitted that petitioner is nothing to do with the product and he is only a salesman working in the firm of A-2 and when the owner and manufacturers are relieved of the charges, continuing proceedings against salesman i.e., A-1 would amount to abuse of process of court, and therefore, proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Food Inspector after following due procedure filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-4, since proceedings against owner and manufacturers are quashed, he would leave the matter to the discretion of the court.
5. I have perused the material papers filed alongwith criminal petitions including orders of this court in Criminal Petition No. 523 of 2008, dated 19/2/2008; Criminal Petition No. 2125 of 2008, dated 17/6/2009 and Criminal Petition No. 6088 of 2008 dated 30/4/2010. The criminal petitions filed by A-2 to A-4 are considered by this court and observed that there is un-explained inordinate delay in filing the complaint and also producing the sample before court as well as absence of service of notice under section 13 (2) of the Act which deprived valuable right of accused to get the sample analysed by Central Food Laboratory. The very same ground applies to this petitioner also. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case to quash proceedings in CC.No. 591 of 2002 since owner and manufacturers were already discharged from the charges as per orders of this court in the quash petitions filed by them.
6. Considering the facts of the case and the orders passed in favour of A-2 to A-4, I am of the view that petitioner herein also stands on the very same footing, therefore, entitled to the relief claimed.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC.No.591 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally, Khammam district, is quashed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
04/07/2014
I s L HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6191 OF 2012 Circulation No. 117 Date: 04/07/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43