THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2162 of 2004 BETWEEEN: The Food Inspector, Srikakulam … Appellant AND Korada Ramanamurthy … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2162 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The State filed this appeal questioning acquittal of the accused of the offence under Section 16(i)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act), recorded by the lower Court. PW1/Food Inspector obtained sample of green gram dal from kirana shop of the accused in Etcherla Village on 02.11.1998 at 11:00 A.M. He sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst on 03.11.1998. The Public Analyst after analysis sent Ex.P22 report dated 10.12.1998, along with Ex.P21 covering letter dated 12.12.1998 opining that sample of green gram dal does not conform to standards of moisture and contains added synthetic food colour tartrazine and therefore is adulterated. Written consent of the Director was obtained as per Ex.P25 on 12.08.2000. PW1 filed complaint in the lower Court on 27.09.2000. After the complaint was taken on file, PW1 gave Ex.P26 notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused on 26.12.2000 and it was received by the accused on 30.12.2000 as per Ex.P28- postal acknowledgment. The lower Court recorded acquittal of the accused on two grounds namely, that there was contravention of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short, the Rules) and that there was delay in service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. 2. Even though nothing was stated in Ex.P15- mediators report, PW1 admitted in cross-examination that he used intermediary vessel and used weighing machine of the accused himself for transferring green gram dal from its container to the weighing machine, for weighing the sample food item and for making the same into three equal parts. It is noticed by the lower Court that PW1 did not state that the intermediary vessel and the weighing machine of the accused were dried and clean before using the same. The lower Court noticed that there were no other vessels except one intermediary vessel for the purpose of transferring oil from the container to the weighing machine. In those circumstances, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that Rule 14 of the Rules was not complied with in this case. 3. Even though sample was dispatched to the Public Analyst on the next day of obtaining the sample from the accused and even though the Public Analyst after analysis sent report of the analysis to the local (Health) authority in less than forty days, there was long, inordinate and unexplained delay of twenty months in obtaining written consent from the Director as per Section 20(1) of the Act and more than four months thereafter in sending notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused. There is total delay of nearly 25 months in serving notice to the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act after obtaining the sample of green gram dal from his shop. Though there may not be any changes in the chemical properties of synthetic colour like tartrazine, there is bound to be change in moisture contained in the sample which is offended by the prescribed standards, because of lapse of time. Therefore, valuable right of defence of the accused is virtually lost because of the delay, by way of sending second sample for analysis to Central Food Laboratory for second analysis and second report. On both the grounds, the lower Court rightly recorded acquittal of the accused. There are no grounds to come to a different conclusion in this appeal. 4. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________​ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:26.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2162 of 2004 Dt:26.12.2011 ysk