THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.188 of 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, filed this appeal under Section 378 (4) (5) and (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment, dated 22.03.2006 passed in S.T.C.No.65 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur District, whereunder and whereby, the respondent/sole accused was found not guilty of the offence under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rules 23 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this case, may be stated as follows: P.W.1, who was the Food Inspector, along with mediators, inspected the hotel of the accused on 25.10.2002 at about 12.00 noon and found 15 kgs of Biryani kept for sale for human consumption. Suspecting that it was adulterated, he purchased 1500 grams of prepared food and divided the same into three equal parts. After following due procedure, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst after analysis, opined that the sample contained synthetic colour sunset yellow and therefore, it was adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the competent authority, prosecution was launched. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the accusation levelled against him, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 and Ex.X.1 were marked. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused was not guilty for the accusation levelled against him and accordingly, acquitted him. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Heard both sides. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant proved the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against him. 8. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under the law that the accused is presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. However, this Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence to know whether the findings are passed on proper appreciation of evidence on record or any perverse finding was recorded or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or admissible evidence has been overlooked. In short, there must be substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. 9. The evidence of P.W.1 would clearly go to show that he purchased 1500 gms of Biryani on 25.10.2002 from the hotel of the accused. The complaint was lodged on 05.09.2003. There was nearly 11 months delay in serving notice to the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act. A valuable right, which is conferred upon the accused to make a request to the Magistrate concerned to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, is lost. However, the accused did not choose to do so. Even if the accused had chosen to request the Court to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis, there is no use in making such request because sample of food is a perishable one and the true values would not come, due to lapse of long time. It may not fit for analysis after 11 months. Further more, the Day Book (Ex.B.2) and Ledger of 2002-03 (Ex.B.1) of the hotel shows that 25.10.2002 was a holiday. Therefore, the trial Court believed the version of the accused and accepted the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3. When two views are possible from the evidence adduced, the view, which is favourable to the accused, is to be adopted. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. 10. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 22.03.2006 in S.T.C.No.65 of 2003 on the file of I – Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 3rd FEBRUARY, 2010. kvni