Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/S. Parie Agra Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 June, 2024

                                                    1

 APHC010032152016
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                      AT AMARAVATI                                                [3310]
                               (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                    TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
                      TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                             PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

                           WRIT PETITION NO: 5557 OF 2016

Between:

M/s. Parie Agra Pvt. Ltd.                                                             ...PETITIONER

                                                 AND

State of Andhra Pradesh and Others                                             ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. N JEEVAN KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR HOME (AP)

The Court made the following:

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the

following relief:-

"to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the C.C.No.365 of 2012 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and pass such other order or orders......."

2. The precise case is that the 2nd respondent alleged to have lifted the

sample of one of the products of the petitioner company which were

manufactured on 30.05.2010 from Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, Proprietor M/s

Srinivasa Departmental Stores, Yellamnchili, Visakahpatnam on 11.10.2010

and alleged to have sent the same for analyses to State Food Laboratory,

Hyderabad andopined that the said sample contains excess benzoic acid and

therefore it is adulterated, basing on the said report given by SFL, complaint

has been filed and same is numbered as C.C.No.365 of 2012 on the file of the

Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District

on 20.06.2011 and the same came to be known by the petitioner only on

16.05.2012. Therefore, the present writ petition came to be filed, questioning

the action of the respondents in registering the crime against the petitioner

company illegally.

3. Heard Mr. N. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel, representing Mr. P.

Vikram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Maheswar Reddy, learned

Government Pleader, Home for the respondents.

4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

contents urged in the writ petition. Whereas, learned Government Pleader,

Home for the respondents vehemently argued that the adulterated Frooti

Mango Drink and pet bottle were seized and sent the same for analyses to

State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad. The SFL analysed the sample vide report

413/2010, dated 26.11.2010 under the category A.16.30 of Appendix B of

PFA Rules, 1955 (Carbonated fruit beverages or fruit drink). Therefore, basing

on the report given by SFL, a complaint has been filed and numbered as

C.C.No.365 of 2012. Therefore, the petitioner company is liable to be

prosecution in accordance with law. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.

5. Perused the record.

6. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid

(P) Ltd., and Others"1 wherein it was held 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. The procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has the 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 the 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, the expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra.....

7. In "Koduru Subash Chandra Bose v. State of Andhra Pradesh"2,

wherein the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court held as follows:

"8. In view of the above and in the light of the judgments in Girishbhai and Ghisa Ram (supra), this Court has no hesitation to hold that there was delay in supplying copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the petitioner and

(1999) 8 SCC 190

2022 SCC OnLine AP 3243

it deprived his valuable right to get the second sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory, and such latches on the part of the prosecution cannot be cured at this stage. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner in the above C.C are liable to be quashed.

8. In similar circumstances of this case, the High Court for the State of

Telangana in "Mr. S. Praveen v. The State of Telangana"3, quashed the

Criminal Case by relying the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Municipal

Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram"4 holding that "For the said reason of the

petitioner being denied an opportunity of testing the sample, which is on

account of the complainant not providing the analysis report within the shelf

life period of the product, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to

be quashed".

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this Court

with regard to Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954,

which reproduced hereunder:

Section 13(2) On rece3ipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub- section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory"