THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Criminal Appeal No.1609 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal with special leave petition is directed against the Judgment dated 20-3-2006 passed in C.C.No.69 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur, whereby the trial Court acquitted the respondent for the offences under Section 7 (1) and 2 (ia) (j) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The brief facts are that on 21-9-2002 at about 3-30 p.m., the Food Inspector, Division-I, Anantapur inspected the shop of A2 viz., S.Nagamanikyam General Stores, situated at Main road in Gooty R.S., and found A1 transacting business in the said shop. On being enquired by the Food Inspector, A1 informed him that A2 is the owner of the said shop and that all the food articles in the shop are meant for sale and for human consumption. The Food Inspector found 8 Kgs of mustard seeds in a gunny bag along with other food articles. Suspecting the quality of mustard seeds to be adulterated, he purchased 600 grams of mustard seeds from A1 by paying its costs of Rs.12/- and obtained a cash receipt which was attested by A1 and another person by name A.Chandra Sekhar Gupta, who was present at the shop at that time. Thereafter, he took three samples in three dry clean and empty plastic jars and affixed identification slips on each sample with the signature of A1. On enquiry by the Food Inspector, regarding source of supply of the said mustard seeds, A1 did not disclose the same and did not give any bill in support of its purchase. Then, the Food Inspector prepared a Panchanama for the said proceedings in the presence of A.Chandra Sekhar Gupta, and A1 himself in which A1 and the said Chandra Sekhar Gupta attested on 23-9-2002. The Food Inspector sent one sample to Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad under intimation to Local Health Authority along with memorandum Form VII. The remaining two parts of the samples along with two copies of memorandum form VII were sent to Local Health Authorities, Kadapa. The Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad after the analysis of the above samples, furnished report in form III Vide No.735/2002, dated 22-10-2002 along with covering letter addressed to Local Health Authority opining that the samples contains synthetic colour and it is therefore, adulterated. Then the Food Inspector forwarded a detailed report to the Director Institute of Preventive Medicine P.H. Labs and Food Health Authority, A.P., Hyderabad, who in turn accorded written consent for launching prosecution against A1 and A2 in R.C.No.12013/F-4/2002, dated 6.1.2003. Heard. The prosecution examined the official witness i.e., The Food Inspector as PW1 and a panch witness as PW2 with regard to alleged seizure of the samples. But, however, the said panch witness did not support the case of the prosecution. During the course of evidence, he stated that he seized mustard seeds under the cover of Ex.P8 panchanama from the office of the Panchayat Secretary of Gooty R.S. at the request of the Food Inspector. Further, he deposed that he did not visit the shop of A2 and no samples of mustard seeds seized from out of the said shop. The said evidence of PW2 totally falsifies the case of the prosecution and does not support the remaining evidence of PW1, who is none other than the Food Inspector. In a case of this nature, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW1 alone. Further, the alleged offence took placed on 21-9-2002 i.e., about 8 years back. In these circumstance, it is not a fit case even for admission. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J rkk Dated: 13-12-2010