CRLP/2568/2010 of Dwarampudi Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 29 December 2011

Conclusion

ORDER:

The petitioners 1 to 3/A1 to A3 are accused of offencepunishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention ofFood Adulteration Act (in short, the Act). A1 is PlantSupervisor, A2 is Managing Director of A3 company namelyAmmireddy Oils Limited, Anaparthi, East Godavari District.Food Inspector, East Godavari District, obtained sample ofrefined rice bran oil from an open container in the factorypremises on 09.01.2006 at 02:00 PM. He sent one of thesamples to the Public Analyst for analysis on 10.01.2006.The Public Analyst after analysis sent report dated20.02.2006 to the Local (Health) Authority opining that thesample does not conform to the standard of acid value andis therefore adulterated as per Section 2 (ia) (m) of the Act.The Director and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, gavewritten consent under Section 20 (1) of the Act for launchingprosecution against A1 to A3 on 20.09.2006. Food Inspectorfiled the complaint in the lower Court on 27.10.2006. Aftertaking cognizance of the complaint for the above offence bythe Magistrate, Food Inspector issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act to the accused on 10.11.2006.

It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there isinordinate delay in launching the prosecution and inobtaining written consent from the Director and the saiddelay is not explained properly and validly and that becauseof the said delay the accused had lost their valuable right ofdefence by way of sending second sample to Central FoodLaboratory for second analysis and report, because by thedate of service of notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act,shelf-life of the sample product became expired. It iscontended by the petitioners counsel that shelf-life of anedible oil like refined rice bran oil is only six months. Sincethe sample product is an edible oil called refined rice bran oilit holds good for a period of six months only and thereafterbecause of lapse of time, there is bound to be change inchemical properties of the sample product. The adulterationfound by the Public Analyst in this case is excess acid valuethan prescribed in the standard. Because of passage oftime, acid value in an edible oil is bound to increase andeven if the second sample is sent to the Central FoodLaboratory after a lapse of nearly one year, the sample is notgoing to be tested in the same condition in which it wasobtained by the Food Inspector one year back. In such an event, no purpose will be served even if the second sampleis sent to Central Food Laboratory for second analysis andreport. Therefore, this Court finds that valuable right ofdefence of the accused is lost because of delay in obtainingwritten consent from the Director and consequently delay inlaunching the prosecution and issuing notice under Section13 (2) of the Act. In that view of the matter proceedings in thelower Court against the accused are vitiated.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashingproceedings in C.C.No.669 of 2009 on the file of JudicialMagistrate of the First Class, Anaparthi, East GodavariDistrict.

_____________________________

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

December 29, 2011MD

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

MD

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2568 OF 2010

December 29, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDRABAD

Dated: 29.12.2011

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALAGOVINDARAJULU

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2568 OF 2010

Between:Dwarampudi Venkat Reddy and others.....PETITIONERSANDState of Andhra Pradesh....RESPONDENTThe Court made the following: