GUGGILAM MURAHAN RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point which arises in this revision is as to what is the interpretation of the phrase "after the institution of prosecution". In order to appreciate this point, it is necessary to state some facts :

(2.) The second accused, who is the petitioner before, me is, a retail vendor of food articles and he purchased from the wholesale dealer, A-1, under Bill No. 2, dt. 28-6-83 and the said bill was warranty. The Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner and after complying with all the formalities mentioned in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules, took 3 samples in 3 dry, clean and empty bottles, sent one bottle to the Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis and the other two bottles to the local (Health) Authority. On receipt of the report of the public analyst, complaint was filed against the petitioner and A-1 on 27-8-83. It was returned on 8-9-83 for complying with certain requisitions. It was re-presented again on 12-9-1983 and was taken on file by the Magistrate on 15-9-83. The public analysts report was served on the petitioner on 29-8-83. After the Magistrate took the complaint on file, summons was served on the petitioner on 17-9-83. He then filed a petition u/s. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on 23-9-1983 to send one of the sample bottles, which were kept with the Local (Health) Authority, to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. The lower court dismissed this petition holding that it was filed beyond the period prescribed under the Rules. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Mr. Bali Reddy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner (A-2 in the case) submits that no doubt the complaint was filed on 27-8-83, but it was returned on 8-9-83, from which it should be concluded that there was no complaint at all until it was taken on file by the Magistrate on 15-9-83. In other words, what the learned advocate submits is that the "institution of prosecution" means that the Magistrate should apply his mind and then take on file the complaint; then it will mean that the proceedings have been instituted against the accused person, in the instant case on 15-9-83 and the petitioner filed the petition on 23-9-83 to send the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Mysore and it was within the time as contemplated under the Rules. Rule 9-A of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provided "The Local (Health) Authority shall, immediately after the institution of prosecution, forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis in Form III delivered to him under sub-rule (8) of Rule 7 by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector". Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provides :