The High Court · 2025

Petition under .:;ection 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memoran<lum of Grounds of criminal petition,the High c:ourt may be pleased to stay all fu'hep ppo"""dings including appearance oi ther petitioner / Accused No.3 to 7 in ,i:l.No.16i ol 20os on the file oi Hon,ble Judicierl First class Magistrate,Asifabad. t\: itabad District This Petition corning on for hearing, upon perusing the Menrorandum of ^ Grounds of criminal P:,tition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. shanker, Advocate for the Petitioners and sri syed Yasar Mamoon, Addit onal public Prosecutor on behalf o1 the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.tS368 of 2OIB ORDER: This Criminal petition is hled under Section 4g2 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short .Cr.p.C.J to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 7 in C.C.No.161 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad, Adilabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7(i) & (v) and 2(ia) (J) of pFA Act, 1854 read with Rule 23 and 29 of pFA Act Rules punishable under Section l6(1)(a)(i) of pFA Act, 1954.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the defacto complainant inspected the shop of accused No.2, M/s. Vijaya Chowdeshwari Kirana, on 25.O5.2OO1, and collected a sample of Green Gram Dal from a 2O kg open gunny bag without label declaration. The sample was sent to the public analyst, who reported that it contained synthetic color tartrazine and was therefore adulterated. After completing the investigation, the complainant obtained written consent from the Food Health Authority and filed a complaint before the learned Judicial 2 sKs'J Crt.P.No.15368 of2013 Magistrate <rf First Class, Asifabad, Adilabad District on

27.O4.2005

3. Hearcl Slri B. Shankar, Iearned counsel appearrng on behalf of tLLr: petitioners as well as Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon' learned Adrlitional Public Prosecutor appearing on be)ralf of the responilen ts.

4. l,earrLt:d counsel for the petitioners submitted th at the complaint fit:d against the petitioners is barred by limitation' as it was lrt:C on 27.O4.2OO5, more than three years after'ihe sample was; :cllected on 25.05.2OO 1 . The delay of thret: years and 11 mor .hs is not explained, and no application wzts filed to condone .he de1ay. He further submitted that the notice under Ser:tLor, 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulterat:on Act was not set.,zecl on the petitioners, depriving them of their right to send the rrc€nd part of the sample for re-analysis and that the sample r',rls collected from an open gunny bag withc'ut any label declar ation, and therefore, accused No l wils not protected lu- cler warrantY.

5. Lear;rt:ri counsel for thc petitioner contended that there is no nexus; between the purchase bill submitted by accused No. 1 and the sample and that the written consent orcrer was ..,., 3 sKs,J crt.P.IIo.l536a or2()13 issued on 17.O9.2OO2, but the case was filed after a lapse of three years and 1 I months, without any explanation for the delay. He further contended *rat the sanction order was issued against the proprietor of M/s. Shanker Lal & Co., but the complaint was hled against different individuals, contrary to the sanction order. The prosecution has acted casually, without following the law and procedure, and the petitioners have not contradicted or violated any provisions of the law and that the hling of the complaint against the petitioners appears to be based on assumptions and presumptions, rather thal facts. The averments in the charge sheet do not match the contents of the complaint, and therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this Criminal Petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature, which requires trial. Further, the case is of the year 2OO5. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No, 15358 of 2013 In the light of the submissions made by both the 7 . learned coun s; : I and a perusal of the material availabl': on record, the Iirst contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners ls thLat the complaint is time-barred' The offences alleged are tx:low three years, and the limitation peric'd is three years. IrI support of this, learned counsel referred to the judgment o1'this Court in Anitha and Others v' The Stal:e of Telangana, \I/ f Lere it was observed that although sanctioll for prosecution rvzrs obtained on 25.10.2016, the complaint w4s fi1ed on 76.Ot3.2O17. By the time of hling the complaint, i.e',

16.O3.2077. the one year period permitted under Section l/7 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2O06, to take cognizlnce of the offenct: had already expired on 19.02-2017. This clelay in filing the r:omplaint and the lapses of the prosecrtting agency led r-o the quashing of the proceedings. Learned counsel for tl-r<: petitioners also relied on the judgment o i the Hon'ble Suprr:rne Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Raml, which held that undue delay in fi1ir:.g a complaint cor-r.d prejudice the respondent's right, especially when the rle:lir.r results in the denial of a valuable right guaranteed lr.:,cler Section 13(2) of the Prevention of lrood AIR 1967 SC 97Cr r 5 SKS,J Crt.P.[o.15368 of 2013 Adulteration Act, 1954, such as the opportunity to have the sample analyzed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The Court found that the prosecution had committed an inordinate delay in launching the prosecution, and this resulted in the respondent being deprived of his right to defend himself properly.

8. The second contention raised by the petitioners is that there is no nexus between the purchase bills and the sample taken. According to the complaint, the sample was lifted from an open gunny bag without any label declaration, and thus, the accused was not protected under the warranty provided by the Act. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamanani v. The State of Maharashtra2, which emphasized the necessity of a warranty in the sale of food articles under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Court ruled that the statutory provisions requiring a warranry are designed for public health, and no laxity should be allowed in such matters. 9 . The third contention is that the prosecution was launched without proper sanction. The sanction order dated ' Atn t9z5 sc 189 b sESr' Crl.P No.1536 8 of2013 17 .Og .2[l)it a'uthorized prosecution against the Proprletor of M/s. Shan}::r Lal & Co'' but the prosecution acted conrary to this sanction and included the petitioners as accused' despite the fact thrrt they were not working partners of the ccmpany' The learnt:': counsel argued that the complaint u'as fi1ed based 16.O 1.2OO3 from the A.ssistant on a l€tt(rr sanclion had Hyderabad, after the Commerci:1 Tax Offtcer' 20 of the Prevention of Food states that no Prosecutiorr for an shall be instituted except with the the Central Government or the State been grztrLted' Section Adulterat.ion Act, 1954' Act offence trlrder this received written crrnsent of Governrn: nt'

10. In lkLe present case' aithough the sanciion was granted 17 .CI<).}OO2, the comPlaint was hled in the Year 2005' Furthermore, there was much laler than the sanction date and the no ProFrrll: sanction to prosecute the Petitioners ' inclusiorL of the petitioners in the complaint, despiti: their lack of invoh':ment in the hrm' is invalid' I 1 . O<msidering all these factors' and lollowing the judgrn,:rrt' in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra)' where the I lrrr,'ble Supreme Court held thal a detay in prosecution * I 7 sxs,J crl.P.Ito.l5368 of iol3 could lead to prejudice and the denia,l of a valuable right to the accused, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted. Furthermore, the lack of proper sanction for prosecuting the petitioners and the improper inclusion of the petitioners in the case render the proceedings unsustainable. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed due to the failure to obtain proper sanction, the delay in filing the complaint, and the lack of a valid connection between the sample and the purchase bills.

12. In view thereof, this Criminal Petition is ailowed artd the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.161 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad, Adilabad District, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPYII To,

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad, Adilabad District. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at S CTION OFFICER Hyderabad[OUT]

3. One CC to Sri B. Shanker, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies 'Ptp/PSL w 1i F- S,r-,

14. o k 3 ?6 ffiAn 2[6 ,| t5,- .,- :==.;: ? (-. a! {+ HIGH COURT DATED:181031i2025 ORDER CRLP.No.15368 ot 2013 ALLOWING THIE CRL.P. ,\ 2b