Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 10 (AP)

S. K. Rabbani Basha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-01-02

K.SURESH REDDY

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.27 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadiri, Anantapur District, filed the present criminal petition, under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings against them in the said C.C. 2. At the outset, it may be noted that originally the case has been registered as C.C.No.376 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadiri, Anantapur District. However, subsequently, during pendency of this criminal petition, the case against the petitioners has been split up and numbered as C.C.No.27 of 2019, as has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners vide Memo dtd. 5/7/2023. Hence, the case number has been amended in the petition, vide separate docket order passed today. 3. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under: The subject C.C. has been registered on the complaint filed by the State through the Food Inspector, Anantapur, under Ss. 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act of 1954'). It was alleged in the complaint that on 17/4/2010, Food Inspector, Anantapur, visited the business premises of M/s. Nagarjuna Agencies, Rayachoti Road, Kadiri, and at that time, accused No.1 was transacting the business and he introduced himself as vendor-cum-proprietor of M/s. Nagarjuna Agencies. Having suspected adulteration of Kinley Club Soda, which was kept for sale for human consumption, the Food Inspector purchased 3x600 ml. sealed pet bottles of Kinley Club Soda, labelled as Kinley Club Soda, Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages Private Limited, Sy.No.127 to 131, Kapuganneri Village, Sri Kalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, by paying its cost, in the presence of witness. It was alleged that on enquiry, the vendor did not disclose the source of supply. Having followed due procedure, one part of the sample of the food article was sent to Public Analyst and remaining two parts were kept in the safe custody of Assistant Food Controller and Local (Health) Authority. After analysis, the Public Analyst gave report dtd. 22/5/2010, opining that the sample does not conform to the standard of Total Plate Count and it is, therefore, adulterated. On 26/11/2010, the Food Inspector sent detailed report of complete case file to the State Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, for necessary orders. After analysis, the Public Analyst gave report dtd. 22/5/2010, opining that the sample does not conform to the standard of Total Plate Count and it is, therefore, adulterated. On 26/11/2010, the Food Inspector sent detailed report of complete case file to the State Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, for necessary orders. After examination, the State Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, accorded written consent order vide Rc.No.7188/F4/2010 dtd. 14/3/2011 to launch prosecution against the accused. Accordingly, charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 to 3, Proprietor of M/s. Nagarjuna Agencies, Quality Assurance Executive and Nominee of M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Limited and M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Limited respectively, for the offences under Sec. 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of the Act of 1954, punishable under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 1954. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences alleged and issued summons to accused Nos.1 to 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/A2 and A3 filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings against them in the subject C.C. 4. Mr. S. Leo Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that even as per the averments in the complaint, source of supply of the stock was not furnished by the vendor. He further submits that the shelf life of the beverage had expired by 12/5/2010 itself, whereas the Public Analyst gave report on 22/5/2010, and since the shelf life had expired, the petitioners have lost their right to get the sample of article analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. He further submits that it is mandatory that a copy of the report of Public Analyst shall be forwarded to the persons concerned, within a period of ten days after the institution of prosecution, but in the present case, the complaint was filed on 11/7/2011, whereas the copy of the report of Public Analyst was sent to the petitioners on 19/9/2011, i.e., after two months of institution of prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that accused No.2 is not the person nominated by the company to be in-charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and, thus, arraying him as an accused is unjustified. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel further submits that accused No.2 is not the person nominated by the company to be in-charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and, thus, arraying him as an accused is unjustified. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes the petition, contending that in case of offences affecting health and safety of public at large, trivial laches with regard to procedural aspects cannot be taken into account. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire material available on record. 7. As per Sec. 13(2) of the Act of 1954, on receipt of report of Public Analyst to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons concerned, forward a copy of the said report to such persons, informing them that if it is so desired, they may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of the report, to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Rule 9B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, 'the Rules'), would mandate that within a period of ten days after the institution of prosecution, the report of Public Analyst shall be forwarded to the persons concerned. In the case on hand, as can be seen from the record, the complaint was filed on 11/7/2011, whereas copy of the report of Public Analyst was forwarded to the petitioners on 19/9/2011, along with notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Act of 1954 (available at page No.34 of the material papers). Thus, it is evident that copy of the report of Public Analyst has not been forwarded to the petitioners within the period prescribed. Another important aspect to be noted is that the shelf life of the food article in question, having been prescribed as two and a half months from the date of its packing i.e. from 27/2/2010, had expired in the month of May, 2010 itself. Another important aspect to be noted is that the shelf life of the food article in question, having been prescribed as two and a half months from the date of its packing i.e. from 27/2/2010, had expired in the month of May, 2010 itself. Thus, by the time the complaint has been filed and copy of the report of Public Analyst has been served on the petitioners, the shelf life of the food article had already expired. The shelf life of a sample of food shall have its bearing when the sample is tested or analysed in the laboratory and once the shelf life of the sample has expired, no useful purpose would be served in getting the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In the case on hand, due to the delay on the part of the prosecuting agency in initiating prosecution and serving copy of the report of Public Analyst on the petitioners, the petitioners were deprived of an opportunity to exercise their valuable right to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In the circumstances, since the authorities have failed to observe the mandate under the Rules in relation to the time limit prescribed for forwarding copy of the report of Public Analyst to the petitioners and as the valuable right of the petitioners conferred under the Act of 1954 has been defeated, this Court is of the opinion that continuing the criminal prosecution against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. Thus, the proceedings against the petitioners in the subject C.C. are liable to be quashed. 8. For reasons discussed above, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadiri, Anantapur District, are hereby quashed so far as accused Nos.2 and 3 therein/petitioners herein are concerned. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.