GROUND NUT OIL DELAY OF 3 YEARS SEC.13 NOTICE

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
Criminal Petition No. 1917 of 2008
27-04-2010
Bolisetty Satyanaga bala Raju
S/o Late Subba Rao
Aged 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1/321,
Main Road, Pedana, Krishna District,
Tadepalli Post, Guntur District and another
The State of A.P. rep. by Food Inspector
Division-II, Krishna District through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao
Counsel for respondent: Public Prosecutor
:ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.203 of 2007 on the file of the Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Food Inspector, Division-II, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, along with his staff, visited the shop of the petitioners herein and after following the usual procedure, three samples of Priyanka Gold double filtered Grounut oil were seized and one sample was sent to the public analyst for chemical analysis. The remaining two samples were sent to the Assistant Food Controller and Local (Health) Authoirty, zone-II, Kakinada. After obtaining sanction to prosecute the petitioners, the complaint was lodged alleging that the petitioners committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (m) and 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated Priyanka Gold Double filtered Groundnut Oil.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the samples were lifted on 29-12-2003 and they were sent for chemical analysis on 30-12-2003 and the report was received on 03-02-2004, however, the complaint was filed in the year 2007 and that the petitioners received summons on 12-03-2008 and therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. His further submission is that the petitioners are deprived of an opportunity to challenge the said report by getting it re-examined by the Central Food Laboratory in view of the delay of more than three years in filing the complaint from the date of lifting the samples. It is also submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court in Crl.P.No.6566 of 2007 quashed the proceedings, through the order, dated 19-11-2007.
4. I have gone through the order in Crl.P.No.6566 of 2007 referred above and the facts of that case are almost similar to the facts of this case. Whatever may be the cause of delay, but admittedly, the samples were lifted on 30-12-2003 and the complaint was filed in the year 2007. Thus it is clear that the valuable right of the petitioners to get the sample re-examined by the Central Food Laboratory has been lost. No purpose would be served if the sample is sent for re-examination after lapse of three years. In view of the same, it appears that there are no valid grounds to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
5. Accordingly the Criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.203 of 2007 on the file of the Special mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam, are hereby quashed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.