MAHAVEER LOHIYA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in s. T. C. No. 6 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class kothavalasa, Vizianagaram district, so far as the petitioners, who are A2 to a4. The complaint is filed for the offences under Sections 16 (1) (e) (i), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE brief facts are on 29. 7. 2000 at about 3. 00 p. m. , Food Inspector, vizianagaram, along with his Attender, inspected Kirana shop of A-1, who was transacting business at that time, found four 200 ml. Gold drop vanaspathi vitamin enrich sealed packets along with other food articles for human consumption, purchased three sealed packets each measuring 200 ml, served form vi notice on A1 about his intention of sending the sample to Public Analyst for analysis and after observing necessary formalities, sent one sample for analysis on 31. 7. 2000. On the same day, the remaining two parts of sample were sent to Local (Health) Authority, A. P. , Hyderabad. As per Label declaration, he found that the packets were being manufactured by A4. The Public Analyst, vide his report dated 25. 9. 2000, opined that the sample does not conform to the standards of Red units in respect Baudonin's test for sesame oil and free fatty acid content and therefore it is adulterated. A-2 and A-3 are partners of A-4. Hence, the complaint?

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was served on 18. 5. 2002 stating that complaint was filed on 15. 5. 2002 and that if it is so desired, to get the sample of food article analysed by the Central Food Laboratory; that in view of delay in issuing the notice, the valuable right of the petitioners under Section 13 (2) of the Act is lost as the other parts of samples would have deteriorated and decomposed and become unfit for analysis and so, no useful purpose would be served if the second sample is sent to Central Food Laboratory for analysis; hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court.