IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1462 OF 2009 Between: The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Mamidpally Ramulu ..... Respondent/Accused The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Sections 378 (4) (5) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7(i) & (v) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 44 (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules'), in its judgment, dated 26.11.2007, in C.C.No.388 of 2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nizamabad. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows: The Food Inspector-P.W.1, Division-I, Nizamabad, inspected the Kirana shop of the accused along with his attender on 14.04.2000 at about 4.00 p.m. and the accused was transacting the business of groundnut oil. P.W.1 found 30 kgs. of groundnut oil in the shop. Though the accused stated that he purchased the groundnut oil from Murali Traders, Nizamabad, but he has not produced any receipt or bill and stated that the same is meant for sale for human consumption. P.W.1, on suspicion that it was adulterated, purchased 450 grams of groundnut oil and divided the same into three parts. After following the due procedure under the Act and the Rules made therein, one sample packet was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst after analysis vide his report, dated 22.05.2000, opined that the sample does not conform to the standards of Butyro-refractometer reading at 40°C Bellier's test and Iodine value contains Palmolive oil and it is not free from separated water and therefore, adulterated. Thereafter, P.W.1 submitted a detailed report to the Director of the State Food Health Authority for consent. The Director of the State Food Health Authority has given a consent on 07.03.2002 to launch the prosecution against the accused. Thereafter, the complaint was filed. 3. The case was taken on file on 12.04.2002 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act read with 7 (i) & (v), 2 (ia) (m) of the Act and Rule 44 (e) of the Rules. 4. When the accused was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the accusations levelled against him, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P25. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence. 7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there is a violation under Section 13 (2) of the Act and accordingly, the accused was acquitted. Hence, this Criminal Appeal by the State. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act read with 7 (i) & (v), 2 (ia) (m) of the Act and Rule 44 (e) of the Rules and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 9. Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly go to show that the article of sample was purchased from the shop of the accused; that as per the report of the Public Analyst, the same was found to be adulterated, and therefore, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act read with 7 (i) & (v), 2 (ia) (m) of the Act and Rule 44 (e) of the Rules, and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 10. There cannot be any dispute that though the Appellate Court has got full power to reappreciate the evidence available on record, but it will 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 the contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., 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, normally this Court would not interfere with the same. 11. The main ground on which the accused was acquitted is that the accused lost his valuable right under Section 13 (2) of the Act as there was abnormal delay of 730 days in filing the complaint and by that time, the other sample would not be fit for analysis even if the accused exercises his right to send the second sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The right conferred on the accused under Section 13 (2) of the Act is a valuable right because once the accused exercises his right to send the second sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, that report becomes final and the report of the Public Analyst will be superceded by that report. In such a case, the accused lost his valuable right in making a request to send the sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory because there was a delay of more than two years after lifting the sample. After lapse of two years, the second sample may not be fit for analysis. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused on the ground that there was a violation of Section 13 (2) of the Act. The findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. The said order does not call for any interference by this Court. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 26.11.2007, in C.C.No.388 of 2002, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nizamabad. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 19th October, 2009 KL