THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2095 of 2004 BETWEEEN: The Food Inspector rep. by the Public Prosecutor … Appellant AND Shankerlal … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2095 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The lower Court recorded acquittal of the accused of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) on two grounds namely, that PW1/Food Inspector has no territorial jurisdiction to lift sample in question and that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint by Food Inspector before the Magistrate. 2. PW1 collected sample of Moti Pak Sweet from shop of the accused on 10.01.2002 and sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst on 11.01.2002 for analysis. The Public Analyst after analysis sent analyst report on 08.02.2002 opining that the sample does not conform to standards fixed by Appendix- B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, in as much as the sample contains synthetic food colour. Rule 29 of the Rules prohibit use of permitted synthetic food colours in items of food other than in those items listed therein in Clauses (a) to (h). The Director gave written consent under Section 20(i) of the Act for launching prosecution against the accused on 26.04.2002. But surprisingly, the complaint was presented before the Magistrate on 17.04.2003. There is time gap of nearly fifteen months from the date of lifting the sample to the date of filing the complaint in the lower Court. It is only after filing of the complaint and taking cognizance by the Magistrate, PW1 sent notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused. The lower Court came to the conclusion that because of the delay in issuing the notice, the accused lost valuable right in getting the sample analyzed by Central Food Laboratory. The said observation of the lower Court basing on [P.Chandrakanth Vs. State of A.P.[1]] is unwarranted in this case. This is not a case where the sample of food became putrefied losing its original properties and in which case sending second sample to the Central Food Laboratory becomes a futile exercise. In this case, there is no comment by the Public Analyst on quality of the sample and its properties. Comment of the Public Analyst on the sample is to the effect that it contains prohibited synthetic food colour. Prohibited synthetic colour is not going to degenerate or multiply or change its character by way of passing of time. Therefore, delay in launching the prosecution in a case of this nature, is no ground for throwing away the prosecution. 3. Secondly, Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1957 prescribes jurisdiction of Food Inspector to exercise his powers. A Food Inspector can exercise his powers within the local area to which he was appointed. Admittedly, PW1 was appointed by Ex.P3- Proceedings of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, as Food Inspector for Circle-III of Hyderabad, whereas shop of the accused is located in Circle-V of Hyderabad. Therefore, PW1 had no territorial jurisdiction to exercise his power of obtaining sample of food from shop of the accused. It follows that the complaint lodged by PW1 in the lower Court is not competent. On that ground, the lower Court is right in recording acquittal of the accused. 4. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:20.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2095 of 2004 Dt:20.12.2011 ysk [1] 2002(2) ALD (Crl) 113(A.P.)