Judgment : 1. This is an application to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 746 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, West & South, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District registered under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and for violation of Section 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , 1954 (for short the “Act”). 2. The case of the prosecution is that instructions were issued in Memo No. VER/F/2003, dated 8.4.2003 by the Asst. Food Controller, Zone-VI, Ranga Reddy District to participate in the special raids to be conducted at Ranga Reddy District on 9.4.2003, as per the provisions under Rule 9(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Accordingly, on 9.4.2003 at about 12:15 p.m. Complainant along with staff accompanied with the officials of Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Department, Hyderabad (Rural), have visited the premises of M/s Jubilee Sweets & Bakers, H.No. 4-25-114/3, Wadi- E-Mehmood, Suleman Nagar, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District for inspection. There the official found stock of 30 pouches of 250 ml. quantity packaged drinking water (Relish) in the premises. He enquired with accused No.1 about the nature, purpose of stocking them in the premises and source of supply of above mentioned packaged drinking water pouches. But, accused failed to disclose his name and also failed to produce the purchase bill. Then the official lifted the said samples of drinking water pouches as per the procedure prescribed under the Act and sent the same for analysis. As per the report of the analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated as sample does not conform to the standard of pH value and also it contains coliforms and Yeasts. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that nothing on record to show that the petitioners are the persons, who manufactures the samples that were lifted by the Food Inspector and sent for analysis and since the charge sheet shows that purchased bills, supplier’s name and addresses etc. were not furnished, the petitioners cannot be made liable for punishment under the Act because, the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act are not complied with and so the charge sheet against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. He also contended that in view of inordinate delay in filing the charge sheet, in view of the ratio laid down in S.S. SUJATHA Vs. He also contended that in view of inordinate delay in filing the charge sheet, in view of the ratio laid down in S.S. SUJATHA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH(Crl.P.No. 873 of 2002, dated 18.3.2002), the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 4. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 746 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, West & South, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District? Petitioners are Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the complaint lodged before the Court below. The story of the prosecution is that the complainant visited the shop of the accused No.1 on 9.4.2003, at 12.15 p.m. and had found 30 pouches of packaged drinking water (Relish) and he has failed to disclose the name of supplier or manufacturer and he also failed to produce the bill showing the purchase of the same. On the pouch, the respondent had found that the same was processed and packed by the 2nd respondent and it is best before 21 days from the date of packing, and that the Complainant on suspicion of adulteration of the same had purchased 30 pouches in the presence of panch witnesses and paid its cost and obtained a cash receipt in the presence of mediators. It is further alleged that a notice in Form No.VI was issued and served on the accused No.1 informing him that the same will be sent to Laboratory and has sent the same along with Memorandum in Form No.VII on the next day i.e. on 10.4.2003 he has received the report from the said Laboratory dated 13.5.2003 certifying that the sample sent to him was adulterated. On receipt of the report from the analyst, the Complainant had sought permission to launch prosecution as required under Section 20 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to the Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Laboratories and Food (Health) Administration, Hyderabad who has accorded written consent for launching prosecution as against the accused on 16.8.2003 for the offences as stated supra. On the basis of the said allegations the above referred C.C. was filed on 15.10.2003 and the same was taken on file by the Court below and registered the same as C.C.No. 746 of 2003. The petitioners herein arrayed as an accused on the basis of the table declaration found on the water pouches. On the basis of the said allegations the above referred C.C. was filed on 15.10.2003 and the same was taken on file by the Court below and registered the same as C.C.No. 746 of 2003. The petitioners herein arrayed as an accused on the basis of the table declaration found on the water pouches. The petitioners did not produce any purchase bill. The respondent did not give any opportunity to the petitioners as required under Section 11 (4) of the Act. The lable declaration was to that effect that the product is best before 21 days from the date of packing. The shelf life product expires after 21 days of its packing. The details of purchase of the said product by accused No.1 and from whom he purchased are silent and the same is in violation of sec 14(a) of the Act. Further, there is delay in serving the notice in the C.C. and the petitioners have not left with any remedy to substantiate their claim by sending the alleged sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune. As per record, the inspection was conducted at the shop of accused No.1 on 9.4.2003 and the sample was sent to Laboratory on 10.4.2003. According to Section 11(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, any adulterant seized shall be produced before a Magistrate as soon as possible and not later than 7 days after receipt of the report of the Public Analyst. In the present case, the report of the Public Analyst was issued on 13.5.2003 and the same was produced before the Court along with C.C. that too after a long lapse of more than six months thereby defeating the right to seek for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Act. Thus, the respondent has given a go bye to the mandatory prescriptions stipulated under the Act frustrating the interest of the petitioners. As stated supra, the petitioners who are manufacturers of the product lifted by the Food Inspector can be proceeded against only if the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act are complied with. Thus, the respondent has given a go bye to the mandatory prescriptions stipulated under the Act frustrating the interest of the petitioners. As stated supra, the petitioners who are manufacturers of the product lifted by the Food Inspector can be proceeded against only if the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act are complied with. Since there is nothing on record to show that the product purchased by the Food Inspector was supplied by the petitioners to accused Nos.1 and 2 and since admittedly accused Nos.1 and 2 did not produce any bill and for not disclosing the name and address of the supplier of the product lifted by the Food Inspector from them, it cannot be said that they supplied the product to accused Nos. 1 and 2 for public sale. As the respondent has miserably failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act, the proceedings as initiated by the respondent in C.C.No. 746 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, West & South, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District has no legs to stand. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence under the Act and accordingly, the charge sheet against them is liable to be quashed. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No. 746 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, West & South, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District are quashed.