R. Narayana Swamy and Another vs The Food Inspector and Another

K.R. Udayabhanu, J.—The petitioners who are the accused in C.C.No.442/2002 in the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni with respect to the offences under Sections 2(l-a)(I), 7(1). read with Section 16(1-A)(1) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, have sought for setting aside the proceedings alleging that the petitioners have been deprived of the opportunity provided in the statute vide Section 13(2) to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. It is the case of the petitioners that the manufacturing date of the sample, i.e. bottled water herein is 17-10-2001 and it is displayed in the packing as to use as best before six months from the date of packing. The above period expired on 15-4-2002. The complaint has been filed on 27-5-2002 as is evidence from Annexure-A copy of the complaint. Annexure-C notice u/s 13(2) has been issued on 5-6-2002. Hence evidently the prosecution has been launched beyond the period specified on the bottle use as best before which expired on 16-4-2002. Subsequent request to get the sample tested at the Central Food Laboratory would have served no purpose. Hence, the accused was seriously prejudiced in their defence. Further more, the only violation with the standard i.e., as contained in Appendix-B, with respect to packed drinking water, P.H. value is noted as 6.02 whereas P.H. value as per the specification is 6.5 to 8.5. The rest of the ingredients noted in Annexure-B report of the Public Analyst comply with the above standard.

The dates of taking sample and filling of the complaint and date of manufacture and the period of used stands undisputed. In such circumstances, the accused would be put to serious prejudice and that the same is sufficient to quash the proceedings and the same has been approved and upheld as per the decision in Nestle India Ltd. v. A.K. Chand. Food Inspector. Kalahandi. 1996 (1)FAC 304. There is no case for the prosecution that the remaining samples were preserved in such a manner so that the lifespan can be extended. Hence, the entire proceedings pending initiated vide C.C.No.442/2002 in the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni is herewith quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed.