IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.A.No.574 OF 2004 Between:- The Quality Control Inspector, Narsaropet (Agricultural Officer), O/o the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant A n d M/s Prasad Agencies, Narsaraopet, Rep. by Sri Vutukuri Seshu Kumar. and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.A.No.574 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-09-2001 in C.C.No.212 of 1998, on the file of the I- Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narsaraopet, wherein the respondents herein/A-1 to A-6 were found not guilty of the offence under Section 29(1)(a) read with Section 3(k) (i) (viii) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and were acquitted thereof. 2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and the learned counsel for the respondents/accused. Perused the records. 3. The Quality Control Inspector, Narsaraopet, attached to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur, filed a complaint alleging that on 28-10-1996 he inspected the business premises of A-1 and took samples of gamma isomer 6.5%, after following the prescribed procedure, and on analysis, the sample was found to be misbranded, as it did not conform to the required percentage of active ingredient content prescribed under the Act. After serving the report of the analyst on A-1, the Quality Control Inspector seized the stock register under a panchanama and deposited one of the samples in the Court for the purpose of re-analysis. The Central Insecticides Laboratory (CIL) on re-analysis opined that the sample is misbranded as it contains 5.50% as against the prescribed 6.5% of active ingredient content. A-1 is the dealer firm and A-2 is incharge of the business of A-1, A-3 is the distributing firm and A-4 is the incharge of the business of A-3 and A-5 is the manufacturing firm and A-6 is the incharge of the A-5. 4. The accused denied the offence and further denied that the Inspector ever visited his shop or took the samples of the said insecticide viz., gamma isomer 6.5% and pleaded not guilty. 5. In support of their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-22. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused. 6. P.W.1 is the Quality Control Inspector who is said to have inspected the shop of A-1 and drawn the sample of subject insecticide on 28-10-1996. P.Ws.2 and 3 are stated to be the panch witnesses in whose presence P.W.1 is said to have drawn the samples and prepared the inspection report-Ex.P-1 and mediator’s report- Ex.P-10. P.Ws.2 and 3 totally turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all. Their evidence does not, therefore, corroborate the version of P.W.1 about his inspection of shop of A-1 and drawing samples of the subject insecticide. In view of the denial of the accused about the inspection itself and drawing of the samples by P.W.1, the trial Court held it unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of P.W.1 in that regard, in the absence of any corroboration by P.Ws.2 and 3. The above finding of the trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not call for any interference. 7. That apart, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents/accused, under Section 22(5) of the Insecticides Act, the Inspector is required to take one sample and divide the same into three portions for the purpose of analysis, but P.W.1 has admittedly not followed the said prescribed procedure and took three separate samples of the subject insecticide, which is not in conformity with the procedure prescribed and there is no explanation from P.W.1 for the said deviation. 8. The report-Ex.P-5 of the analyst shows that the percentage of active ingredient content in the sample contained 3.5% as against the prescribed 6.5%. However, on re-analysis by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, the said percentage of active ingredient content was found to be 5.59%. Thus, there is huge variance between the two reports i.e., Ex.P-5 of the public analyst and Ex.P-14 of the Central analyst in the matter of percentage of active ingredient content. The report-Ex.P- 14 of the Central Analyst would prevail over the report of analyst under Ex.P-5. The margin of difference between the percentage of active ingredient content which is found to be 5.59% as per Ex.P-14 and the required percentage of 6.5% being minimal and negligible, it is considered that there are no such compelling or substantial grounds for interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 9. It is well settled that an order of acquittal cannot easily be interfered with in appeal unless there are strong and compelling reasons to do so. For the reasons stated above, it is held that there are no such strong and compelling reasons in the present case that would call for interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Dated 26th March, 2010 Lrkm.