THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2009. DATED: 30-10-2009. Between: State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Appellant/Complainant and Chowdary …Respondent/Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2009. JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal by the State under Section 378 (1) and (3) Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of acquittal of the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) r/w Section 7 (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, vide judgment, dated 22-10-2007, in C.C.No.1111 of 2006. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 19-05-2005, P.W.1 inspected the shop of the accused and found packaged Swathi Drinking Water bottles. Admittedly, the accused was not present at that time. For not having Bureau of Indian Standard certificate, the complaint was filed. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) r/w Section 7 (v) of the Act, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the accused was manufacturing the article of food in question. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the State. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) r/w Section 7 (v) of the Act? 7. Counsel representing the learned Public prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that the accused is the owner of the manufacturing unit, that the accused has not produced the certificate issued by Bureau of Indian Standards and hence, she prays to set aside the order 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 is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless the findings are perverse or not based upon any evidence, normally this Court will not interfere with the same. 9. The evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that he visited the premises of the accused along with his attender on 19-05-2005 and found packaged drinking water bottles. He came to know that the accused is the proprietor of Swathi Industries. Except the oral testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to show that the accused is the owner of Swathi Industries. P.W.1 has not collected any certificate issued by the Municipality or Grama Panchayat to show that the accused was running Swathi Industries for manufacturing packaged drinking water bottles. The workers who were working in the unit were also not examined to show that the accused is the owner of Swathi Industries. The trial Court after considering the evidence rightly acquitted the accused and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 22-10-2007, in C.C.No.1111 of 2006, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:30-10-2009 Hsd