TANGUDU APPARAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, on the ground of prejudice caused to the accused in sending the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory with a great delay.

(2.) The sample in this case was drawn on 17-11-2001 and was sent for analysis on 19-11-2001. Report dated 12-12-2001 of the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory was received by the Food Inspector on 27-12-2001. After, the petitioner filed a petition to send the second sample for analysis to Central Food Laboratory, the Food Inspector produced the sample before the Court on 24-04-2002 and that sample when sent for reanalysis by Central Food Laboratory, the analyst by his report dated 2-5-2002 stated that the sample is unfit for re-analysis.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitione placingstrong reliance on Statev. Durairajan Hiranand Agarwalla v. Area Food Inspector Dibrugarh and Suresh Narain v. Food Inspector contends that when the Central Food Laboratory gives a report that the sample sent to it for analysis is unfit for analysis because of the delay in sending the sample the accused is entitled to acquittal and so the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.