Thota Karunakar And Anothers v. State Of Ap., Rep.By Its P.P

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI CRIMINAL PETITION No.10172 of 2011 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in C.C.No.536 of 2010 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1-A) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act').

2.

The allegations in the charge sheet would go to show that the date of inspection is on 08.11.2008 and the sample was lifted on the same day and sent to the chemical analyst and received by the lab on 10.11.2008 and the chemical analysis report was received on 15.12.2008 and the complaint was filed on 14.10.2010. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the right given to the petitioners under Section 13 (2) of the Act is defeated because of delay in filing the report. He further submits that the complainant did not take sufficient care to preserve the sample in order to exercise the right given to the petitioners under Section 13 (2) of the Act. 4.

There is no denial of the dates that were submitted by the petitioners herein. In view of the above, there would not be any purpose served by permitting the prosecution to proceed with the case and it would result in abuse of process of law. 5.

This Court in R. Hari Hara Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that the inordinate delay in filing the complaint would deprive the valuable right offered on the accused under Section 13(2) 1 2017(2) ALD (Crl.) 662

of the Act. Because of the violation of the mandatory requirement, no purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution against the accused.

6.

The decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid (P) Limilted2 is also on the same lines. The contention therein that in the absence of the statutory time limit the shelf life of the sample was not relevant, was rejected. Relevant portion at paragraphs 11 and 12 observed as follows: "11. Sub-section (1) of Section 30 which appears to be relevant only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be of no defence but that does not mean that if there are contraventions of other mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused have no remedy. Procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has right to seek dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two opinions about that.

Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra. In State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. [(1996) 11 SCC 613] this Court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the accused to have sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence.

This Court stressed the need to lodge the complaint with utmost dispatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. The Court held that the accused had been deprived of a valuable right statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused.

and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 involving the same question. In this connection reference be made to decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal [(1998) 5 SCC 343] under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram [AIR 1967 SC 970]; Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. [(1981) 3 SCC 72} and Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan Kumar Saraf, [(1999)] 2 SCC 400] all under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

12. It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under sub- section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 24 report signed by the Insecticide analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do not, within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the Insecticides Inspector or the Court before which proceedings are pending that they intend to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report.

By the time the matter reached the court, shelf life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have been served informing the court of such an intention. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence."

7.

In the light of the above legal position and also the reasons mentioned by this Court in the aforementioned paragraphs, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the further proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in C.C.No.536 of 2010 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal District, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.

_____________ T. RAJANI, J OCTOBER 10, 2018 YVL

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI CRIMINAL PETITION No.10172 of 2011 Date:10.10.2018