IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1294 OF 2009 Between: The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Kandadi Sai Reddy ..... Respondent/Accused The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is directed by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1-A) (1) and 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'), for sale of misbranded and adulterated Winpro Granules Food Supplements in violation of Sections 7 (i) and (ii) and 2 (ia) (f) of the Act for sale of misbranded and adulterated Prowin, Proplus, Provitol and Pronex Granules Food Supplements in violation of Sections 2 (ia) (m), 2 (ix) (k) and 7 (i) & (ii) of the Act read with Rule 37 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, ‘the Rules’), in its judgment, dated 30.03.2007, in C.C.No.1095 of 2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal may be stated as follows: P.W.1-Food Inspector, Division-I, Ranga Reddy District, inspected the shop of the accused, M/s.Creative Nutritions, situated at Premises bearing No.3-9-56/7/B, Sharadanagar, Ramanthapur, Ranga Reddy District, on 29.05.2000 along with his attender and at that time, the accused was transacting the business. P.W.1 found the stock of 200 bottles each of Prowin, Winpro, Proplus, Provital and Pronext of protein food supplements. On enquiry, the accused stated that the food supplements were meant for sale for human consumption. P.W.1, on suspicion that the food supplements were adulterated, purchased 3 bottles of 200 grams each of said Provin, Winpro, Proplus, Provital and Pronex of protein food supplements and divided each item into three equal parts. After following due procedure, one sample packet of each item was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst, after analysis, opined that they were adulterated. Thereafter, P.W.1 submitted a detailed report to the concerned authority for consent. The concerned authority has given a written consent to launch the prosecution against the accused. Thereafter, the complaint was filed. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P66. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that Rule 18 of the Rules has been violated and that there was an abnormal delay of more than 18 months from the date of lifting of sample to the date of issuing notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act and accordingly acquitted the accused. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offences alleged against him and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly go to show that P.W.1 purchased 3 bottles of 200 grams each of said Provin, Winpro, Proplus, Provital and Pronex of protein food supplements from the shop of the accused; that when one sample packet of each item was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, the Public Analyst opined that they were adulterated; that the accused has not exercised his right under Section 13 (2) of the Act, and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal, the Appellate Court has got full power to reappreciate the evidence available on record, but it will slow in interfering with the findings in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, 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 same. 10. The samples were lifted on 29.05.2000. The articles of food in question which were purchased by P.W.1 were admittedly manufactured in the month of March, 2000. This can be seen from the recitals in Ex.P54-Report of Analyst. Admittedly, the expiry date of those products was September, 2001. It is not in dispute that the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act has been served on the accused on 19.01.2002. One year has been lapsed after the date of expiry of the articles of food. 11. Section 13 (2) of the Act contemplates thus: “Report of Public Analyst: On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.” 12. No doubt, the accused has not availed his right to make a request to the concerned Magistrate to send the second sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. But at the same time, no useful purpose would be served even if the accused make any such request to the concerned Magistrate to send the second sample because by the date of service of notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, the articles of food in question was expired. In such a case, the articles of food in question may not be fit even for analysis. The true values and result would not come after lapse of 18 months. The prosecution has not explained as to why such an abnormal delay has occurred. In view of the fact that no useful purpose would be served in making a request to the concerned Magistrate to send the second sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. The said order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 30.03.2007, in C.C.No.1095 of 2006, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 30th October, 2009 KL