MATHEW XAVIER Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings in c. C. No. 487 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Judicial magistrate of first Class. Peddapuram.

(2.) PETITIONER is A-5 in C. C. No. 487 of 2001 for the offence under sections 16 (1) (a) (I), 7 (I) and 2 (Ia) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules') for manufacturing, stocking and selling of adulterated 'kissan Fruit Jam' for human consumption. A-1 and A-2 are the vendors of Kissan Fruit Jam, A-3 is distributor to A-2, A-4 is the stockist, A-5 is the Regional Sales manager and nominee of A-6 and A-6 is M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, which manufactures the Jam. On 23. 12. 1999 A-1 sold three bottles of Kissan Fruit Jam to the Food inspector, Peddapuram, who after following due procedure prescribed in law sent the sample along with Form VII to the Public Analyst. On analysis the Public analyst vide report dated 01. 02. 2000 opined that the sample contained 'moulds' and was, therefore, adulterated. The complaint was filed on 13. 12. 2001 and the Learned magistrate took cognizance of the complaint on 20. 12. 2001 as C. C. No. 487 of 2001 and a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner/a-5 on 24. 12. 2001.

(3.) NO doubt as per the judgment of this Court in Cr. A. No. 327 of 2003 and batch dated 05. 10. 2005 in Gangaiahnaidu Rana Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2005 (2) FAC 249 unless the petitioner avails the opportunity of getting the second sample tested and analysed by the central Food Laboratory under Section 13 (2) of the Act it cannot be said that prejudice is caused to the petitioner.