Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 191 (AP)

L. Savitri (alias Saraswathi) v. State Of A. P.

2006-02-15

P.LAKSHMANA REDDY

body2006
( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 of cr. P. C to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners i. e. , A. 1, A-2 and A-3 in c. C. No. 586 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Madanapalle. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:- ( 2 ) THE 1st petitioner is running a kirana shop. The 2na and 3rd petitioners represent the company which manufacturers pure water. On 4-12-1999, the Food Inspector took the sample of pure water bottles, while the bottles were kept in the shop of the 1st petitioner and sent the same to the analyst, whose report states that the water was adulterated. The Food Inspector received the report dated 24-12-1999 and thereafter, obtained permission to launch the prosecution on 23-5-2000. He filed a complaint against them as A-1 and A. 3 on 20-10-2002. Thereafter, a copy of the analyst report was served along with the notice under section 32 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate took the case on file as C. C. No. 586 of 2000 against the present petitioners for the offence punishable under Sec. 16 (i) (a) (ii), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (f) of prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Aggrieved by the same, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 preferred the present application to quash the proceedings on two grounds. (1) By 4-12-1999, the water was not included in the definition of food and that in Section 2 sub-clause (c) of clause (v) of Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 drugs and water were excluded from the definition of food and that only with effect from 21-2-2001 water is also included in the definition of food and therefore, the Provisions of Food adulteration Act are not applicable to the facts of this case. (2) Even on the bottle itself it was printed as "best before May 2000". The analyast gave report on 4-12-1999. The copy of report was not served till the last week of October 2000. Therefore,the accused lost his valuable right of sending sample to the Central Food Laboratory. (2) Even on the bottle itself it was printed as "best before May 2000". The analyast gave report on 4-12-1999. The copy of report was not served till the last week of October 2000. Therefore,the accused lost his valuable right of sending sample to the Central Food Laboratory. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of this Court G. Chandra shekar Reddy and another v. State of A. P where in this Court held that the amendment made to Section 2 (v) (c) including water in the definition of food with effect from 21-3-2001 cannot have any retrospective effect. Further, no standard is prescribed in respect of packaged water. Hence the launching of prosecution is not maintainable. ( 5 ) IT is a case in which the sample of mineral water was taken in the month of April 1999. Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel contended that the launching of prosecution under the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, is not maintainable and it is liable to be quashed. It is further contended that even if it is assumed that definition of food is applicable to the facts of the case, there was a delay of more than one year three months in furnishing the copy of the analyst report though on the sample bottle itself it is printed as "best Before May 2000" and that the analyst report was served about ten months after the expiry date in May 2001 and therefore, the accused lost his valuable right of filing an application to send the remaining sample bottles to the Central Food laboratory. Therefore, on this ground also the proceedings have to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor could not oppose the application. ( 6 ) THE only point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of Prevention of Food adulteration Act are liable to be quashed and to what result? ( 7 ) AS seen from the decision cited supra, the water has been included in the definition of food only on 21-3-2001 and prior to that date, water was excluded from the definition of food. In the instant case, the sample of water was taken on 4-12-1999. ( 7 ) AS seen from the decision cited supra, the water has been included in the definition of food only on 21-3-2001 and prior to that date, water was excluded from the definition of food. In the instant case, the sample of water was taken on 4-12-1999. At that time, the water was excluded from the definition of food as defined under Section 25 (C) of prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In view of the above cited decision the amendment is not retrospective. Therefore, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are not applicable and that no prosecution can be launched on the alleged adulteration of pure water which sample was taken on 4-12-1999. Even if it is assumed that the prosecution can be launched under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in respect of the water prior to the date on 21 -2-20001, there is abnormal delay in serving the copy of the analyst report on the petitioners. It is not disputed that on the sample bottles it was printed as "best Before May 2000". Therefore, the copy of the analyst report ought to have been served on the petitioners immediately after the receipt of analyst report on 24-12-1999 to enable the accused to file an application to send the other sample to the central Food Laboratory. As the report was served only in the month of March 2000 by which time the expiry period was already over, no purpose would have been served by sending the sample to the Central Food laboratory. Thus, the accused lost his valuable right. In this case, there is abnormal delay in serving the analyst report though the expiry date of sample was only May 2001. Hence, I find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also for the said reasons the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Thus, the point is found in favour of the petitioners. In the result, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.