Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 592 (AP)

C. RAMA MURTHY v. STATE OF A. P.

2007-06-27

K.C.BHANU

body2007
( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-A-1 and A-2 under Section 482 cr. P. C. , to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 63 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE Food Inspector filed a complaint alleging that on 12-10-2004 at about 12. 30 p. m. he visited the shop of the accused in the presence of mediators and found Greengram dall stock. He purchased 1500 grams of dall and divided the same into three samples. After following the procedure, he sent one sample to the Public analystfor analysis. After analysis, the analyst opined that the sample contains synthetic colour Tartrazine and is therefore, adulterated. After obtaining permission from the Local authority, complaint is lodged on 05-10-2006. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 11 (4) of the Act has been violated because of abnormal delay of two years, that the petitioner could not exercise his valuable right under Section 13 (2) of the act in view of the fact that passage of time will cause further deterioration of the article of food and launching prosecution after lapse of 19 months is abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. ( 4 ) MAINLY on the point of delay, the complaint is sought to be quashed by the petitioners. The article of food if greemgram dall. The date of lifting the sample is 12-10-2004. The Public Analysit by its report, dated 18-11-2004 opined that the sample contained synthetic colourtrartrazine and therefore, it is adulterated. After receipt of public Analyst report, the Food Inspector submitted a detailed report seeking sanction on 03-12-2004. The competent authority has given written consent order on 25-04-2005. The complaint is filed on 05-10-2006 nearly one and half years thereafter. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel forthe petitioner relied on a decision reported in Naresh Kumar Kedia v. Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine and others, wherein the proceedings were quashed when the prosecution was launched nearly after one year eight months as the valuable right has been denied because of the delay on the side of the prosecution. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel forthe petitioner relied on a decision reported in Naresh Kumar Kedia v. Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine and others, wherein the proceedings were quashed when the prosecution was launched nearly after one year eight months as the valuable right has been denied because of the delay on the side of the prosecution. ( 6 ) HE also relied on another decision reported in Konda Suryanarayana and others v. The State of A. P. , wherein the proceedings were quashed as no useful purpose would be served by sending the sample for analysis after lapse of two years nine months. ( 7 ) HE also relied on another decision reported in Vinod Namviar, Regional Sales manager, (Foods) and others v. State of A. P. Rep. by Food Inspector, wherein the proceedings were quashed when there is delay of 27 months in launching the complaint, which is fatal. ( 8 ) HE also relied on another decision reported in Negh Raj v. The State (Delhi administration) and another, wherein it was held thatthere was no justification for launching the prosecution more than two years after the sample was taken and after obtaining the report of the Public Analyst. ( 9 ) THE sample was taken on 12-10-2004. The Public Analyst gave his report on 18-11-2004. Nearly two years after taking of the sample and one and half year after written consent orders given by the competent authority, the complaint is lodged. Therefore, even the second sample is properly sealed in a container, the contains in it would be deteriorated in view of the fact that no former is added. No explanation is forthcoming for one and half years delay even after sanction order given by the competent authority. Therefore, even if the accused would like to exercise his valuable right conferred under Section 13 (2) of the Act, it would serve no useful purpose because the condition would not be same. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C. C. No. 63 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad. .