THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 695 of 2011 Date: 07th June, 2011 Between: The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor … Appellant/Petitioner A n d Padigala Ramulu and 2 others … Respondents / Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 695 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The public prosecutor seeks to file appeal against acquittal of A1 to A3 for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short, the Act). The sample product seized in this case is tea powder. The food inspector purchased the sample from A1’s shop. A2 and A3 are stated to be partners of the tea company which is the manufacturer of the sample product. The lower Court found that the prosecution has failed to show that A2 and A3 were responsible for conduct of business of the manufacturing company. In the absence of proof of participation of A2 and A3 either in the manufacturing process or in conduct of business, A2 and A3 cannot be mulcted with criminal liability on the sole ground that they are the partners of the manufacturing company. Further, the lower Court observed that there was non- compliance of Section 10(7) of the Act, in as much as no independent witnesses were employed at the time of purchasing the sample under panchanama from A1’s shop. Apart from that, the lower Court also found that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. Right of the accused to send second sample to Central Food Laboratory for second analysis and second report is a valuable right. The accused were deprived of the said right in this case. Therefore, the lower Court rightly recorded acquittal of A1 to A3 in this case. Hence, the criminal appeal is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: 07th June, 2011 KSM THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL (SR) No. 18164 of 2010 Date: 07th June, 2011 KSM