MOHD YASEEN KHAN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No. 322 of 2002 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Jedcherla, Mahabubnagar District, relating to the offence under Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (in short, 'the Act').

(2.) The petitioner is running 'Hotel Munnavar at Kavarampet Village, Jedcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, on National High Way No. 7. The Food Inspector made inspection of the said hotel premises on 12-2-2001 and collected samples of 'mixed milk' from the hotel after following the procedure prescribed by the Act and Rules thereunder. On 13-2-2001, the Food Inspector sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst for report after analysis. The Pubic Analyst sent the report opining that the sample does not conform to the standards prescribed for milk, as it is not having the required percentage of fat and also solid not fat (SNF). The said report was received on 24-3-2001 by the Food Inspector. Later, the Food Inspector addressed the Director, Food Health Authority, Hyderabad, for sanction for prosecution on 22-5-2001. The Director passed sanction order for prosecution and the Food Inspector received the same on 16-7-2002. The Food Inspector filed the complaint before the Magistrate on 11-9-2002. The Food Inspector filed the complaint before the Magistrate on 11-9-2002 and it was taken on file by the Magistrate on 28-9-2002. Thereafter, on 8- 10-2002 notice was given to the petitioner- accused under Section 13(2) of the Act read with Rule 9(b) of the rules.

(3.) Relying upon earlier decisions of this Court, it is contended by the petitioner that there is inordinate delay of more than one year eight months in giving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and it would defeat the purpose for which notice under Section 13(2) of the Act is intended. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act is given by the Food Inspector to the petitioner-accused enclosing a copy of the public analyst report for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the accused for sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory for second opinion regarding its composition. Due to delay of one year eight months in giving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, right of the accused to send the second sample to Central Food Laboratory for analysis for obtaining second opinion, is virtually defeated.