THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 47 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), by the State, is directed against the Judgment, dated 29.11.2008 in C.C. No. 313 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, whereunder and whereby the respondent-accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(v) Sub- rule 28 and Rules 49 & 50(1) read with Section 16(1)(a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the Appeal may be stated as follows: On 20.04.2006 at about 10.30 a.m., the Food Inspector inspected M/s Jetty Pharma Industries of the accused and found 20 liter cans 20 in number and 20 liter bubbles 15 in number, in a packaged condition kept for sale for human consumption. Each can was having a label with particulars as Swathi packaged drinking water. The respondent accused disclosed that the unit was not having the certification from the Bureau of Indian Standards. Thereafter, the Food Inspector prepared panchnama and sent the same to Director, Food Health Authority, Hyderabad for launching prosecution. After obtaining permission from the competent authority, a complaint was lodged. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 7(v) Sub-rule 28 and Rules 49 & 50(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined two witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked 9 documents i.e. Exs.P1 to P9. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. After appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the unit has not commenced its functioning and it is only in the processing stage and that there is no evidence to show that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 7(v) Sub-rule 28 and Rules 49 & 50(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and accordingly, acquitted him. Challenging the same, the present Appeal is filed by the State. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence alleged against the accused and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 7. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the accused has not produced any certificate from the Bureau of Indian Standards so as to run the industry and therefore, it is an offence punishable under the Act 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 a finding is shown to be improper or not based upon any admissible evidence, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the same. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the same. 9. The case of the complainant is that the respondent- accused has not obtained the certification from the Bureau of Indian Standards and, therefore, it is an offence punishable under the Act. But, however, the Food Inspector has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the article of food in question was manufactured in the unit run by the accused at the time of his inspection. The accused produced the electricity bill showing the consumption of power to run the unit. Electricity is required to run the unit. If the respondent- accused has run the unit on trial basis, that would not be an offence punishable under the Act, in view of the fact that the article of food was not manufactured for storage or distribution or sale for human consumption. Even P.W.1 did not specifically testify whether the unit was working at the time of inspection and he did not mention the presence of the workers in the unit. He did not also note down the meter reading of the unit. The evidence on record would disclose that the unit appears to have been a new one started for bottling the packaged drinking water. If it is a case of trial run, it cannot be said that the unit was manufacturing the packaged drinking water for the purpose of sale for human consumption. After completion of the trial run, if the actual product is being produced, it can be said that the accused intended to distribute or sell the article of food in question. That evidence is lacking. Therefore, the trial Court, after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused. In my opinion, there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 10. The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment dated 29.11.2008 in C.C.No. 313 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala. ---------------------- (K. C. BHANU, J) 1st February 2010 ksld