THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1303 of 2009 (Dated : 26-10-2009) Between: State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant/Petitioner A n d Diljeet Singh S/o late Gurumukh Singh D.No.3-4-241, Kacheguda Hyderabad. …Respondent/Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1303 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, filed by State, is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.09.2006 in Calendar Case No. 23 of 2004 on the file of the I Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the respondent/accused was 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’). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal, may be stated as follows: PW-1-Food Inspector along with Assistant Food Controller, inspected the shop of the accused on 27.9.2003 at about 12.15 Noon and found the accused transacting the business. On suspicion that the article of food was adulterated, he purchased 600 grams of curd, divided it into three equal parts, put them in clean, dry and empty bottles, and after adding ‘formalin’ preservative, one sample was forwarded for analysis to the Public Analyst, who after analysis, opined that the sample was deficient in milk fat by about 84.0% and was therefore adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the competent authority, the complaint was lodged. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he denied the accusation made and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses PWs.1 to 3 and got marked 27 documents, Exs.P.1 to P.27. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, upon consideration of evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the ground that the Food Inspector, Division-III, Ranga Reddy District is not empowered to draw the sample and that Ex.P-3 is not proved. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the State. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954?. 7. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless the contrary is proved. The said presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Normally this court, sitting in an appeal against the order of acquittal, would not ordinarily interfere with the judgment unless there exists substantial or compelling reasons. Some of them are:- (i) Perverse finding is given; (ii) Findings are not based upon evidence; (iii) Inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration; (iv) Admissible evidence has been overlooked. 8. The article of food viz. Curd, was purchased by P.W.1 on 27.9.2003, and on 4.11.2003 the Public Analyst gave opinion stating that the sample of article of food was adulterated. Thereafter, the Food Inspector lodged the complaint before the Court on 9.11.2004. Thus, there is a delay of more than one year in filing the complaint before the court. By that time, the second sample may not be fit for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory due to natural chemical changes. 9. Further, PW-1 was working as Food Inspector, Division- III in Ranga Reddy District, on the date of inspection and purchasing the sample. The hotel of the accused is situated in Kacheguda area within the limits of twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. Normally, the Food Inspector working in Ranga Reddy District in Division III shall not enter into the limits of twin cities to draw the sample. The case of the prosecution is that the State Food Health Authority specially empowered the Assistant Food Controller-cum-Local Health Authority to draw the sample with the assistance of Food Inspector, Division-III, Ranga Reddy District. Ex.P-3 is the copy of the order issued by State Food Health Authority authorizing the Local Health Authority of Hyderabad and the Food Inspector Division III of Ranga Reddy District to lift the sample. But, the prosecution failed to produce the original of Ex.P-3. Further, Ex.P-8 panchanama dated 27.9.2003 reads that the Food Inspector, Division III Ranga Reddy alone has participated in lifting the sample and the Assistant Food Controller of twin cities had not at all taken part in lifting the sample. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 10. The appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment dated 20.9.2006 passed in C.C.No.23 of 2004 on the file of I Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. _____________ K.C.BHANU, J Dt. 26.10.2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1303 of 2009 DATED : 26-10-2009