IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.A.NO.263 OF 2010. Date:11.02.2010 Between:- The State of A.P., rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Appellant/Petitioner And M.Madhava Reddy and another .. Respondents/Accused JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) is filed by the State against the judgment, dated 21-07-2008, made in C.C.No.323 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Shadnagar, whereunder and whereby, the respondents/accused were found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 2(ia) (m)2(ix)(k), 7(i)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (‘the Act’, for brevity) and Rule 50 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (‘the Rules’, for brevity) and accordingly, acquitted. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: On 17.03.2001, at about 11.50 a.m., the Food Inspector along with his Attender inspected the premises of the accused and found 10,000 sachets of pure water each 250 ml which were kept for sale for human consumption. Suspecting that the sachets of water are found to be adulterated, he purchased six pouches from A-1 and divided them into three equal parts. One part was sent to the public analyst. The public analyst, after analysis, opined that the sample contains “Yeasts and Pathogen Organism Salmonella” and is therefore, adulterated. After obtaining written consent, P.W.1 lodged the complaint. 3. When the accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 2(ia)(m)2(ix)(k), 7(i)(ii) of the Act, and Rule 50 of the Rules, 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-21. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present Criminal appeal is filed by the State. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 2(ia)(m)2(ix)(k), 7(i)(ii) of the Act and Rule 50 of the Rules and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper?” 8. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that he purchased the article of food in question from A-1 and as per Ex.P-10 report, the sample is found to be adulterated and therefore, the accused is liable for punishment. 9. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, or contrary to law, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the order of the acquittal. 10. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that he purchased six pouches of pure water each 250 ml from A-1 on 17.03.2001 and after following the due procedure, he sent one sample to the public analyst. The public analyst, vide its report dated 20.04.2001, opined that the sample contained Yeasts and Pathogen Organism Salmonella and therefore, it is adulterated. A valuable right is conferred on the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act where under the accused can make a request to the concerned Magistrate to send the second sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. There cannot be any dispute that the certificate that may be given by the Director, Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of public analyst. Though the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been served on the accused on 07-10-2002, there is no evidence on record which would go to show that the Food Inspector added preservative to the article of food in question so that it would be fit for analysis even after long time. The evidence of P.W.2 would clearly go to show that the shalf life of the article in food in question is only six months. If that is taken into consideration, the sample is unfit for analysis after 17.09.2001. There was a delay of one and a half years from the date of lifting the sample till the date of serving notice under Sec.13(2) of the Act on the accused. Even though the accused did not make any application to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, at the same time, no useful purpose would be served in making such a request because by the time of serving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the article of food may not be even fit for analysis. Further, true values may not come even if it is analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and the said order needs no interference. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming Judgment, dated 21-07-2008, made in C.C.No.323 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Shadnagar. _​_______________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th February, 2010 AMD