M JAIPAL REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(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 8B 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 8B 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 v. State of Andhra Pradesh (No. 873 of 2002, dated 18.3.2002), the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.