IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 CRLA No.1369 of 2009 Between: The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ….PETITIONER and 1. Puram Laxminarayana and others …RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRLA No.1369 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 20.12.2006 in C.C.No.1399 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda, whereunder and whereby the accused/respondent nos.1 to 5 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short – ‘the Act’) for contravention of Sections 7(i) and 2(i-a) (m) of the Act. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: A-1 was the cashier of Golden Deer Bar & Restaurant situated in Miryalaguda and A-2 to A-4 were the partners of the Bar & Restaurant which was arrayed as A-5. On 01.08.2001 at about 12.40 PM, Sri K.Atchaiah, Gazetted Food Inspector, Nalgonda District (P.W.1) inspected A-5 Bar & Restaurant and found A-1 was transacting the business. When P.W.1 enquired A-1 about the curd in a steel bucket, he disclosed that the said 1½ litres of buffalo curd was meant for sale to public for human consumption. Suspecting the said curd as adulterated, P.W.1 purchased 600 gms of buffalo curd and divided the same into three samples. After observing the necessary formalities, one sample of curd was sent to the public analyst for analysis. The public analyst through his report dated 03.09.2001 opined that the sample was deficient in milk fat by about 72.0% and therefore was adulterated. After obtaining the written consent from the competent authority, P.W.1 lodged a complaint against the accused. 3. When the accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act for contravention of Sections 7(i), 2(i)-(a)(m) of the Act, they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.36. No evidence, either oral or documentary has been adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the accused on the ground that there was a delay in lodging the complaint. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act beyond all reasonable doubt? 7. Heard the counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the judgment. 8. There cannot be any dispute that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless the contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal unless the findings are perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. 9. One of the statutory rights guaranteed to the accused is to make a request to the concerned Magistrate to send the second sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. It is well known fact that the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. There was a delay of about 15 months in lifting the sample and serving a notice on the accused. Even though ‘formalin’ was added to the sample, the article of food may not be fit for analysis, in view of the decision reported in MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI vs. GHAISA RAM[1] wherein Dr. Sat Prakash opined that the food article like curd, it starts undergoes changes after a week, if it is kept at room temperature, without preservative, but remains fit for analysis for another 10 days thereafter. On the other hand, if a sample is kept in a refrigerator it will preserve its fat and non-fatty solid contents for the purpose of analysis will be retained for a total period of four weeks, and if a preservative is added and the sample is kept at room temperature, the percentage of fat and non-fatty solid contents will be remained for the purpose of analysis for about four months, and in case it is kept in a refrigerator after adding the preservative, the total period which may be available for analysis, without decomposition, will be of six months. 10. Therefore, even if the preservative ‘formalin’ is added and is kept in the refrigerator, the article of food like curd will not be fit for analysis after six months. There is also no evidence to show that the sample was kept in the refrigerator at any time within the six months. After six months, the article of food like curd would get decomposed. In such a case, the article of food if analyzed after six months would not give true and correct values. Therefore, in that way the accused lost his valuable right of making a request to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory and no useful purpose would be served since the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served on him after lapse of 15 months. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the trial Court, after consideration of evidence on record, rightly found the accused not guilty of the offences alleged against them and, therefore, the order of acquittal passed against the accused does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 11. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 20.12.2006 in C.C.No.1399 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 18th September, 2009 CVRK [1] AIR 1967 SC 970