PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. NALLA PYDIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The State Appeal is filed against an order of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Visakhapatnam acquitting the respondent from a charge under sections 7 and 16 (1) read with section I (1) (A) and rule 44 (B) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, .1954.0 The case of the prosecution was that P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, purchased ½ a seer of milk from the respondent on 14th March, 1960 and thereafter he divided the milk into three parts and put them in three bottles adding formalice to the contents. Then the bottles were sealed and one of them was sent to the Public Analyst He submitted his report under Ex. P-4 which shows that the samples sent to him contained 8 per cent, of added water and was, therefore, adulterated. This report is dated 8th December, 1960. But the complaint was filed on 25th July, 1963. At every stage I find delay. Even the report of the Public Analyst has been submitted after a lapse 6f nearly 9 months. On the top of it there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. There is no explanation on behalf of Inspector why he took so much time to file this complaint Which gives rise to this case. I agree with the learned-Counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor that the view of the trial Court with regard to the scope of section 10 (7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not been fully comprehended by the learned Magistrate. But I cannot overlook this long delay." In one of the cases I have observed that inordinate delay, if unexplained, would amount to the harsssment of the accused and would call for quashing of. the proceedings. I still stick to the same view and on this very ground the prosecution must fail. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. K.N.R.Appeal dismissed.