IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 CRLA No.1084 of 2009 Between: The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ….PETITIONER and 1. Pallapu Srinivasa Rao and others …RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRLA No.1084 of 2009 ORDER: The appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 28.02.2007 in C.C.No.1187 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda, wherein and whereby the accused/respondent nos.1 to 3 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short – ‘the Act’) for contravention of Sections 7(i) and 2(i-a) (m) of the Act. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: On 09.08.2000, Sri B.Veeraiah, the Food Inspector, Division No.II, Nalgonda District along with his staff inspected M/s.Cool Point, Pylon Pillar, Pylon Colony, N.S.Dam, Nalgonda District and found the accused no.1 was transacting business. During inspection, the Food Inspector found 500 sealed bottles of purified mineral water in the shop. Suspecting that the same were adulterated, he purchased 3 bottles of purified mineral water and after observing formalities one bottle of mineral water purchased from the accused was sent to the analyst for analysis. The analyst after analysis opined that the sample contained Yeast and therefore adulterated. After obtaining the written consent from the authorities for launching prosecution, the Food Inspector lodged a written complaint against the accused. The accused, when examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., denied the accusation made against them under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act for contravention of Sections 7(i) and 2(i-a)(m) of the Act. To substantiate the accusation against the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.30. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record elaborately, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to show that the sample (Article of food) was injurious to health, that there was an inordinate delay in launching prosecution against the accused, that there was an inordinate delay in issuing notices under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused after receiving the Public Analyst Report in Form No.III, that the 1st accused (1st respondent herein) was entitled to protection under Section 19(2) of the Act as he purchased the article of food in question under an invoice and, therefore, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same the present appeal is filed. 3. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act beyond all reasonable doubt? 4. Admittedly, the Food Inspector (P.W.1) lifted the sample on 09.08.2000 and the Analyst who analyzed the sample gave report on 11.09.2000 and, on receipt of the sanction order for prosecution on 12.02.2002, P.W.1 filed the complaint before the Court on 23.07.2002 against the accused/respondent nos.1 to 3. On 17.10.2002, the Food Inspector got the notices under Section 13(2) of the Act served on the accused. Because of the delay in issuing the notices under Section 13(2) of the Act the accused would be deprived of their valuable right in making a request to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory as the article of food remain in the same state for a period of 2 years. Even if the accused made a request to send the second sample for analysis, it would not give any proper results as because of the delay the article of food may not be fit even for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. There cannot be any dispute that the report of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of public analyst. Therefore, the prosecution has to explain the delay in not lodging the complaint against the accused immediately after receipt of the report from the analyst on 11.09.2000. Keeping that in view, the trial Court, after considering the material on record elaborately, rightly found the accused not guilty of the charges and acquitted the accused and the said order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to call for any interference from this Court. 5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 18th September, 2009 CVRK