HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Crl.A.No. 50 of 2010 DATED: 29.01.2010 Between:- The State of A.P. rep. By the Public Prosecutor .. Appellant And Uma Shankar Padi and two others .. Respondents/ Accused JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment, dated 24-07-2008 delivered in S.T.C. No. 622 of 2005 by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakonda, whereunder and whereby, the respondents-accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 7(1), 2(ia)(h) and 16(1-A)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”). 2) The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector, Gram Panchayat, Palakonda, on 18.02.2005, at about 12.15 P.M., he inspected the business premises of A1. On suspicion that 45 Water Gold packaged Drinking Water packets, which were meant for sale for human consumption, were adulterated, he purchased 36 water packets from A1 by paying the price. After dividing the water into three equal parts, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who in turn, sent his report opining that the water was adulterated as the sample does not conform to the standards of Aerobic Microbial Count and Coll from Count and it contains Salmonolin, a Pathogenic Organism which is injurious to health. After obtaining written consent from the Director, IPM P(H) Labs, Food (Health) Administration, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, the complainant lodged a complaint against respondents- A1 to A3 before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakonda. 3) When A1 to A3 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 7(1), 2(ia)(h) and 16(1-A)(ii) of the Act, they denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4) To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P32 on its behalf. No witnesses were examined nor got marked any documents on behalf of the defence. 5) The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the accused not guilty, and accordingly, acquitted them. Challenging the judgment of acquittal, the complainant-State has filed the present Criminal Appeal. 6) Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of respondents-A1 to A3 for the offence punishable Under Section 7(1), 2(ia)(h) and 16(1-A)(ii) of the Act, beyond all reasonable doubt? 7) Counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PW1 is very clear that he purchased the article of food in question from A1 and the Analyst Report would clearly go to show that the water was adulterated, and therefore, she prays to set aside the judgment of acquittal. 8) There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Ordinarily, the appellate Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal unless the finding of the trial Court is shown to be perverse or contrary to law and not based on evidence. 9) PW1, Food Inspector, purchased 36 water packets from the shop of A1 on 18.02.2005, and one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who opined that it does not conform to the standards of Aerobic Microbial Count and Coll from Count and it contains Salmonolin, a Pathogenic Organism, which is injurious to health, and therefore, it was adulterated. The Public Analyst sent the report on 24.03.2005. The trial Court also observed that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has not been sent to A1 and A2, but was sent to wrong address. Inasmuch as the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was not served on the accused, the valuable right conferred on them has been lost. Even otherwise, in view of the non-serving of notice, if the accused had made a request to the Magistrate concerned to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, no useful purpose would have been served because the article of food by that time, might not be fit for analysis and the true values would not come inasmuch as the article of food, at best, can be used before three months from the date of manufacture. Therefore, the trial Court, after elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment impugned in this appeal. 10) Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment dated 24-07-2008 in S.T.C. No. 622 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakonda,. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J. 29th January, 2010 bcj