HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI L CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 409 OF 2010 Criminal Appeal filed Under Section 378 (4) (5) & (1) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment made in C.C.No.399 ol 2004 dated 24.03.2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chinnur. Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...APELLANT/PETITION ER AND I\/ulchand Devda, s/o.Mohanlalji Devada, Vendor Cum Proprietor of Balaji Rakesh Kumar Sweet House Shop, Ol<j Bus Stand, Main Road, Chinnur Village and [vlandal, Adilabad District ...RESpoNDENT/AccusED Counsel for the Appellant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI VENKATESHWAR VARANASI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 409 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeat is fited under Section 378 (4) (5) and (1) of Cr.P.C. by the State, chattenging the judgment, dated 24.03.2008 passed in C.C.No.399 of 2004 on the fite of the Judiciat Magistrate of First Ctass, Chinnur, wherein the accused was acquitted for the offence punishabte under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adutteration Act, '1954. For the sake of convenience, the parties witl hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in C.C. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that the accused stocked the adutterated sugar for the purpose of sate to the customers, which is injurious to health. On appearance of the accused, the material was perused and on being satisfied, charge under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adutteration Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in telugu, to which he pteaded not guitty and claimed to be tried. ln support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.'l and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. exptaining the incriminating material avaitabte on record, but the same was 2 denied by the accused. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced on behatf of the accused. After anatyzing the evidence avaitabte on record, the triat Court acquitted the accused. Chattenging the same the appeat is fited by the State. Learned Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for the appettant-StatecontendedthatthejudgmentofthetriatCourtis against [aw, weight of evidence and probabitities of the case and that the triat Judge faited to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective' Sri Venkateswar Varanasi, learned Counset appearing for the respondent/accused woutd submit that the prosecution faited to estabtish the guitt of the accused beyond reasonabte doubt' thereforetheaccusedwasrighttyacquittedbythetriatCourt. The point that arises for consideration in this appeat is whether the trial' court committed serious and substantial error in acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Food Adutteration Act and whether the order of acquittal is to be reversed' Asseenfromtheimpugnedjudgment,thetrialcourtgavea finding that the shop of the accused is a sweet shop and he does not sel,t the sugar' P'W'1' who'is the Food lnspector' admitted that the sugar was not meant for sate in the shop of accused and Heard both sides and perused the record. J he used the sugar atong with other ingredients such as maida, oil and other materia(s. No prudent sweet shop owner woutd tike to use the adutterated sugar conta'ining 'iron fittings for manufacturing the sweets to be sotd by him to the customer. In the present case, the accused is not even a retait vendor of the sugar and he onty purchases the sugar in smalt quantity from the retaiters for the purpose of using the same for manufactur.ing sweets. rf the adutterated sugar is found in the shop of the accused, it cannot be said that the accused stocked the adutterated sugar for sate since no prudent sweet shop owner woutd like to use the adutterated sugar containing iron fittings for manufacturing the sweets. Further, it is wett settted taw that in an appeat against acquittat, the scope of th.is Court is very timited and if there is any perversity or ittegatity appears on the face of the record, then onty this Court can interfere with the findings of the tower Court. lt is wetl settted that in an appeat against acquittat, the Appettate court can interfere onty when there is possibitity of one view, which is pointing towards the guitt of the accused. When there is possibitity of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the triat Court. Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusal of the record and the judgment of the triat Court, this 4 :, Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the tearned triat Judge' Accordingty, the appeat is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 24.03.2008 passed in C'C'No'399 of 2004 on the fite of the Judiciat Magistrate of First Ciass' Chinnur' As a sequel thereto' Miscettaneous Petitions' if any' pending shatt stand ctosed' s D /- c H.vExJ$rF : B',.t+HhH \\_,,,' SECTION OFFICER i,?ffi tg j".,rvb?iEf :l'fiilfu ra':$f##ti3t?;l'ilgunu,H,a*,u"o (OUT) iwo CD CoPies //TRUE COPY// To 4. ks ? HIGH COURT DATED:121021202'l JUDGMENT CRL.A.No.409 of 2010 0114h\ 2021 a -k ..\ T 5 ( !:::,: ? )co i: DISMISSING THE CRL.A.