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.264 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 B.Krishnamma 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 25.07.2008, made in C.C.No.338 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, whereunder and whereby, the respondents/A-1 and A-2 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sec.7(i)&(v)&(2)(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (‘the Act’, for brevity) read with Rules 47 and 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (‘the Rules’ for brevity) and accordingly, acquitted. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are as stated as follows: P.W.1-Food Inspector along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar, the then Circle Inspector, Prohibition and Excise (P.W.5), the then Mandal Revenue Officer (P.W.4) and his Attender inspected the toddy shop of A-2 on 27-07-2005 at about 3-00 p.m. At that time, A-1 was present and transacting the business. P.W.1 purchased 1950 ml of toddy, divided the same into three equal parts and sent one sample to the Public Analyst, who after analysis, found that the sample contained Saccharine and does not conform to the standard of alcohol content, total acidity and volatile acidity and therefore, it is adulterated. After getting written consent, the complaint was lodged. 3. When the accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sec.7(i)&(v)&(2) (ia)(m) of the Act read with Rules 47 and 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 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-27. 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 defence evidence. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was abnormal delay from the date of lifting the sample till the date of sending the notice as required under Section 13(2) of the Act thereby depriving the accused of his valuable right and therefore, 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 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sec.7(i)&(v)&(2)(ia)(m) of the Act read with Rules 47 and 50 of the Rules and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper?” 8. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that the toddy was purchased from the shop of A-2 and when the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, it was found to be adulterated, and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the 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., he purchased 1950 ml of toddy from the shop of A-2 on 27-07-2005, and after following the due procedure, he divided the sample into three parts and sent one sample to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst, after analysis, opined that the sample of toddy contained Saccharine and does not conform to the standard of Alcohol content, total acidity and volatile acidity and therefore, it is adulterated. The analyst gave a report on 01.09.2005. The written consent was obtained on 19.05.2006. Complaint was lodged on 03.04.2007. Thereafter, the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been sent to the accused. So, there is a delay of about one year and 9 months in filing the complaint from the date of lifting the sample. A valuable right is conferred on accused under Section 13(2) of the Act to make a request to the concerned Magistrate to send the second sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. Though accused have not availed such right, at the same time, no useful purpose would be served in making such a request. Because of the abnormal delay, true values would not come even if the second sample is analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. 11. Furthermore, admittedly, no preservative is added to the samples at the time of lifting the same. Because of the delay, the sample may not even fit for analysis. In such circumstances, it will be a futile exercise for the accused to make such a request. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming Judgment, dated 25.07.2008, made in C.C.No.338 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar. _​_______________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th February, 2010 AMD