IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.232 OF 2010 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Complainant AND Belala Venkataramana ..... Respondent/Accused The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.232 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, by the State, under Sections 378 (4), (5) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”), is filed against the judgment, dated 21s t April 2006, passed in S.T.C.No.100 of 2002, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa, Srikakulam District, whereunder and whereby, the respondent/sole accused was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 (iii) & 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, “the Act”) and Rule 50 (1) read with Rule 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, “the Rules”), and accordingly acquitted. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.06.2001, PW-1 visited the premises of the accused who was running the shop under the name and style M/s.Vasavi Cashew Industries, situated at Gowthami Street, Palasa, Srikakulam District, and demanded him to produce the license of food article of cashew nut and found that no license was obtained. When the complainant sent a registered notice, dated 23.08.2001, to the accused for obtaining prescribed license, the accused refused to receive the notice and the same was returned with an endorsement of refusal. The Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration, Hyderabad, accorded written consent in R.C.No.9170/F1/2001-3 dated 19.01.2002 for launching the prosecution against the accused. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(iii) and 16 (1) (a) (ii) of Act and Rule 50 (1) read with 20 of the Rules. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, he denied the offences and 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 P6. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. The trial Court, after consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that cashew nut comes under the category of fruit product, within the meaning of Section 2 (d) (iv) of the Fruit Products Order, 1955, and therefore, it is governed by fruit and it is exempted from obtaining license under Section 7 of the Act and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the State preferred this Criminal Appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. Now the point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 9. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal, though the Appellate Court has got full power to reappreciate the evidence available on record, but it will be 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 and that presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless 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. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons while interfering with the order of acquittal. 10. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was not having required license, as required under Rule 50 of the Rules. Rule 50 (1) of the Rules shows that no person shall manufacture, sell, stock distribute or exhibit for sale any article of food, including prepared food or ready to serve food except under a license. The proviso thereto shows that the fruit products covered under the Fruit Products Order, 1955, shall be exempted from the above Rule. Now, it is to be seen whether the cashew nut is a ‘fruit’ within the meaning of Section 2 (d) (iv) of the Fruit Products Order, 1955. The dehydrated fruit is a ‘fruit’ within the meaning of ‘fruit product’ under the said order. It is not in dispute that the cashew nut is a dehydrated fruit. Therefore, in view of proviso to Rule 50, no license is required for manufacture, sale, stock or distribution of fruit products. Hence, the trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused. I see no substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 21st April 2006, passed in S.T.C.No.100 of 2002, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa, Srikakulam District. ______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 22nd January, 2010 KL