The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu Criminal Appeal No.1248 of 2009 Judgment: This appeal by the State under Section 378 (4) (5) & (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the judgment, dated 27th July, 2006, in C.C.No.176 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kamareddy, whereunder and whereby, the respondents-accused Nos.1 and 2 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 2 (ia) (m) and 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the P.F.A.Act’) punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the P.F.A.Act and were acquitted. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 14-08-2000 at about 11.20 a.m., P.W.1 went to Lucky Milk Center situated near SBH, Sircilla Road, Kamareddy, for inspection. At that time, accused No.1 was transacting the business. After disclosing his identity, P.W.1 secured the presence of P.W.2 and purchased 750 grams of curd, on suspicion that it was adulterated. He divided the purchased product into three equal parts, poured them in separate empty clean glass bottles, sealed them, affixed labels on them, obtained the signatures of accused No.1 and panch witness thereon and forwarded one sample packet for analysis to the public analyst, who after conducting the analysis, opined that the sample was deficient in milk fat by about 19% and solids not fat by about 5% and is therefore, adulterated. On 16-02-2002, after receipt of written consent order under Section 20 (1) of the P.F.A.Act from the State Food Health Authority, P.W.1 lodged the complaint and issued notices under Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A. Act to accused Nos.1 and 2. 3. When the accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., they denied the accusation made, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the Prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.30. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was a delay of more than eighteen months in serving notice under Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A. Act, from the date of lifting sample, consequently, the valuable right of the accused has been denied and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now the point for determination is, whether the Prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offences under Sections 2 (ia) (m) and 7 (i) punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the P.F.A.Act. 7. The learned Counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that he purchased the curd, divided the same into three equal parts and sent one part therein to the public analyst; that the public analyst, in his report, opined that the sample was adulterated; that the accused have, in fact, not exercised their right conferred under Section 13 (2) of the Act and therefore, acquittal of the accused on the ground that they lost their valuable right cannot be accepted and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 8. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court ordinarily will not disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 9. P.W.1 purchased article of food i.e., curd on 14-08-2000 from the shop of accused No.1 in the presence of P.W.2 and others and after observing the necessary formalities, divided it into three equal parts and sent one sealed bottle of curd for analysis. The analyst, after analysis, opined that the sample is deficient in milk fat by about 19% and solids not fat by about 5 %, therefore, it was adulterated. P.W.1 informed the same to the State Food Health Authority, which gave written consent order, dated 16-02-2002, to prosecute the accused. It is not in dispute that the sample was lifted on 14-08-2000 and that the complaint was filed on 15-04-2002. It is to be seen that by the date of complaint itself, the shelf life of the article of food in question has expired. The food inspector, who purchased the curd, might not have added the preservative so as to keep the same fit for analysis. Then the possibility of taking place of chemical changes in the curd cannot be ruled out. Though the accused have not made any application requesting the Magistrate to send the second sample for analysis, but, at the same time, no useful purpose would be served by making such a request in view of the abnormal delay of seventeen months in receiving the statutory notice as contemplated under Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A.Act from the date of lifting sample and in view of the fact that the article of food might not be fit for analysis after such a long time. Therefore, the valuable right conferred on the accused has been lost. There cannot be any dispute that the report given by the Director, Central Food Laboratory would supercede the report of public analyst. The trial Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused and the said order of acquittal does not suffer from any serious infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment, dated 27th July, 2006, in C.C.No.176 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kamareddy. _____________ (K.C.Bhanu, J) 20th October, 2009 lur