IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2057 of 2004 DATE: 12.12.2011 Between: The Gazetted Food Inspector, Div-I, Nalgonda, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. …… Appellant And Tumuluru Lingaiah …… Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2057 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The lower Court acquitted the accused/respondent of the offence under Section 7(i) and 2(ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act). Questioning the same, the State/Public Prosecutor filed this appeal. P.W-1 who is the Food Inspector obtained sample of ground nut oil from an open container in shop of the accused by name M/s.Sai Krishna Kirana General and Oil Merchant, Miryalaguda and sent the same for analysis. The public analyst after analysis sent Ex.P-10 report dated 04.08.1999 opining that the sample does not conform to the standards of Bellier’s test (turbidity temperature – Acetic Acid method) and iodine value and that it contains castor oil and palmolien and is therefore adulterated. 2) The lower Court acquitted the accused on the grounds that P.W-2 who is the mediator turned hostile to the prosecution and that Ex.P-1 receipt for payment of value of ground nut oil by P.W-1 does not contain any stamp of shop of the accused. Since it was a small shop in a remote moffusil area, one may not expect any stamp or seal for the shop. That will not invalidate Ex.P-1 receipt. Mediator/P.W- 2 turning hostile cannot be a ground to disbelieve taking sample by the Food Inspector/P.W-1. Evidence of P.W-1 is sufficient to say that he obtained sample of ground nut oil from the shop of the accused. Both the grounds on which the lower Court based its acquittal are untenable. 3) In any event, the acquittal is not liable to be set aside as the prosecution did not file written consent under Section 20(1) of the Act of the Director for launching prosecution against the accused. Though the said consent is stated to have filed along with the complaint in the lower Court, it was not exhibited during trial by the Assistant Public Prosecutor who conducted prosecution in the lower Court. Secondly, there is inordinate delay in giving Ex.P-16 notice to the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act. The complaint was instituted by the Food Inspector in the lower Court on 15.02.2000, though it was signed on 08.02.2000. It was taken on file by the lower Court on 21.02.2000. Ex.P-16 notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was given on 21.02.2000, after about 8 months of taking the sample from shop of the accused. Shelf life of ground nut oil in open container expires by 6 months from the date of extraction of oil. After 6 months, even if the accused took any steps for sending the second sample to Central Food Laboratory for analysis and second report, it will be of no use at all. Therefore, on the above grounds narrated herein, the acquittal recorded by the lower Court is not liable to be disturbed. 4) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 12, 2011 ksh