Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the prosecution against the Accused no. 2, Mr. Garre Satyanarayana S/o Ranganayakulu, in C.C.No. 696 of 2003(old) C.C.No. 9g9 of 2012 (old) and now renumbered as C.C. No. 4BO ot 2O1S (new) on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge cum Judicial First class Magistrate, Mancherial District, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further in C.C.No. 696 of 2003(otd) C.C.No. 989 of 2O12 (old) and now renumbered as C.C. No. 480 of 2015 (new) on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial District, in the interest of justice - This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tj e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunr ,nts of Sri Aadesh Varma, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. M. Ramar,l andra Reddy, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the state of relanganrr on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER : THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.13173 of 2 024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.696 of 2003(old) C.C.No.989 of 2012 (old) and renumbered as C.C.No.480 of 201S(New) on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class [\4agistrate, Mancherial District

02. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and Sri [I.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent Perused the record.

03. The brief facts of the case are that the Food lnspector, Division-1, Adilabad District, instituted prosecution under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (for short 'the Act') against the petitioner-accused No.2, alleging that he had supplied Double Filtered Groundnut Oil (AS Brand) to the accused No.1, which was manufactured by the accused No.4, represented by the accused No.3. The I l 2 Food lnspector collected a sample of the sair oil from the accused No 1 on 30.05.2001, and upon analysis by the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adultera:r d, as per the Report dated 29.06.2001. 04 Learned counsel for the petiticner-- lccused No.2 submitted that the alleged sample of oil was lift: i by the Food lnspector on 30.05.200'l , whereas the complart came to be lodged only in the year 2003, thereby causinly an inordinate delay of more than two years lt is contended tl'i t the shelf life of the said product is only six months, and due c the delay in launching prosecution, the petitioner has lost hir; vs;rr5;" t.nn, I I to have the sample re-analysed by the Central Fc cd Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Focd Ac ulteration Act, 1954, since the natural consequence of r; rch delay IS decomposition of the sample, rendering it unfit f rr analysis. lt is further submitted that the sample lifted froit the shop of accused No. 1 was in sealed packets contair ng the label particulars and that the petitioner, being only ir supplier, had sold the product in the same condition in vhich it was purchased from accused Nos.3 and 4. Learnec counsel also J submitted that the criminal proceedings against the accused No.1 were already quashed by this Court vide Order dated

26.102004 passed in Criminal Petition No.764 of 2OO4 on the ground of delay, and that the present petitioner, who is the accused No.2, stands on the same footing as that of the accused No. 1. Hence, he prayed that the same benefit be extended to the petitloner-accused No.2 by quashing the criminal proceedings.

05. On the other hand, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal petition.

06. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side, it is evident from the record that the shelf life of the product in question, which was offered for sale and from which the sample was drawn, is only six months. ln the present case, the sample was admittedly collected on )1. \-= 4

30.05.2001, and the Analyst submitted h r report on

29.06.2001. However, the notice under Sectiorr 13(2) of the Act, was issued by the Assistant Food ( ontroller on

04.07.2003, i.e. more than two years after the Ana yst's report

07. Since the shelf life of the product is orr y six months, no useful purpose would be served in forwardin I the second sample for analysis to the Central Food Labcrltory after a lapse of more than two years from the expiry cl its shelf life. Consequently, the petitioner-accused No.2 was | ,rejudiced on account of the delay in lodging the complaint. Fur hermore, the sample lifted from the shop of the accused No.1 rras in sealed packets bearing label particulars, and the petili rner-accused No.2, being only a supplier, had sold the produr: in the same condition in which it was purchased from the a< cused Nos.3 and 4.

08. ln view of the above observations arr, I considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and hal ng regard to the delay in lodging the complaint and thr> consequent prejudice caused to the petitioner-accused No.2 coupled with the fact that the criminal proceedings against the i ccused No.1 \ ) were already quashed, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.

09. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in C.C.No.696 of 2003(old) C.C.No.989 of 2012 (old) and renumbered as C C.No.480 of 2015(New) on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class lrlagistrate, Mancherial District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed L. SD/- G. DEEPIKA SISTANT REGISTRAR I /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 The. Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First Class Magistrate' reransana (oUr) Hid3ijl !li'i:!::,11,",:::x'?[r,*3!,3?sEsr Two CD CoPies [.n'.^ HIGH COURT DATED:1910912025 ORDER CRLP.No.13173 ot 2024 ,,. ) t- 1 I M Eii I \./ { ,.* ,i , CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED sJ A*