THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2010 Date:24th February, 2010 Between: The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant and P.Satish Kumar …Respondent/A1 *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2010 JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, on obtaining special leave as per order dated 17.02.2010 passed in Crl.A.M.P.No.385 of 2010, assailing the judgment dated 06.09.2007 passed in C.C.No.33 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Shadnagar, whereby and where under the learned Magistrate found A1 P.Satishkumar not guilty for the offence under Sections 7(i)(v) and 2(ia) (h) r/w. Sec.16 (1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Act’) and acquitted him accordingly. 2. PW.1 V.Keshavulu is the Food Inspector of Mahaboobnagar District. He inspected the kirana stores of A1 P.Satish Kumar on 04.05.2002. He purchased 9 packets of Red Label tea powder and served Form-VI notice to A1 disclosing his intention to take the samples for analysis. He divided the samples into three parts and kept each part in a dry and empty wide mouth plastic bottle. He sealed the samples in accordance with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He sent samples along with Form-VII memorandum to the Public Analyst, Hyderabad, vide letter No.MBNR/D1/06635/2002, dated 06.05.2002. He received the Public Analyst Report No.442/2002, dated 30.05.2002, through the Local (Health) Authority. As per the analyst report, the sample contains iron fillings, which is injurious to health and is therefore, adulterated. After obtaining necessary consent for launching prosecution, a complaint came to be presented before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Shadnagar. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C.C.No.33 of 2003 against A1 P.Satishkumar, A2 C.S.Khosla, Regional Sales Manager, Nominee of M/s.Hindustan Lever Ltd, Chennai, and A3 M/s.Hindustan Lever Ltd, Mumbai, for the offences under Sections 7(i)(v) and 2(ia)(h) r/w. Sec.16 (1-A) of the Act. A2 and A3 filed Crl.P.No.782 of 2003 and got the proceedings against them quashed. Accordingly, the case came to be proceeded against A1 P.Satishkumar only. 3. To bring home the guilt of A1 for the offences under Sections 7(i)(v) and 2(ia)(h) r/w. Sec.16 (1-A) of the Act, the complainant examined 3 witnesses and proved 25 documents. 4. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the complainant and A1, found A1 P.Satishkumar not guilty for the offences under Sections 7(i)(v) and 2(ia)(h) r/w. Sec.16 (1-A) of the Act and acquitted him accordingly, under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C., by judgment dated 06.09.2007. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/complainant. 5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State and perused the judgment impugned in the appeal. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State submits that the respondent/A1 has not produced any bill so as to claim warranty as provided under Section 19(2) of the Act and in which case, the respondent/A1 is liable for the offences under Sections 7(i)(v) and 2(ia)(h) r/w. Sec.16 (1-A) of the Act. 7. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore, to be characterized as perverse. It is also well settled that where two views are possible and the view taken by the Court below is possible, appellate Court cannot legally interfere with the order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is erroneous. 8. PW.1 V.Keshavulu, Food Inspector, Mahaboobnagar, is the complainant and he is the person who collected samples of Red Label tea powder from the shop of the respondent/A1. He admits in the cross- examination that he seized the sealed packets and that any adulteration of the sealed packets is attributable to the manufacturing defects, but not due to the act of the respondent/A1. The learned Magistrate, having taken note of the admissions made by PW.1, proceeded to record acquittal of the respondent/A1 for the offences under Sections 7(i)(v) and 2(ia)(h) r/w. Sec.16 (1-A) of the Act. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the judgment impugned in the appeal, which reads as hereunder: “20. PW.1 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that the samples which were seized by him were kept in the iron rack in the shop of A1, his Attender assisted him in sealing the samples, the said samples were kept by him in plastic jars, which were supplied by the Government and the seals of the pocket were intact. Significantly, PW.1 also admitted in his cross-examination that the adulteration of the samples is due to manufacturing defects but not made by A1. 21. In the light of the categorical admission of PW.1 that A1 has not committed adulteration and the seized samples have got seals intact, it cannot be said that A1 has to be held liable for adulterating the tea powder. 22. In a decision reported in M.Y.JAGADESHAND OTHERS VS. STATE OF A.P. AND ANOTHER (2006 (2) ALD (CRL.) 375 (AP) and in SMT.A.PAVANI VS. STATE OF A.P. (Lawyer’s Choice 2006(7) A.P. 701), while laying emphasis on Sec.19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, it has been categorically held that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed the offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or mis-branded articles of food, if he proves that he had purchased the article of food from any manufacturer, who distributed or dealer with a warranty in the prescribed proforma and the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he had sold in the same state as he purchased it. 23. In the present case, PW.1, as discussed above, has categorically admitted that the seized samples contained seals intact and the so-called adulteration was not made by A1, but it was the manufacturing defect done by the manufacturer. Therefore, in the absence of any satisfactory and cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to demonstrate that A1 has committed the adulteration of the tea powder and in the light of the aforesaid admission of Pw.1 in categorical terms coupled with the ratio laid down in the above decision, it cannot be said that A1 is liable to be punished for the offence lodged against him. For these reasons, A1 cannot be found guilty for the offence alleged against him and he is therefore, entitled for acquittal.” The evidence of PW.1 is crystal clear that for any adulteration of the sample is due to the manufacturing defects. Such is the evidence adduced by the complainant, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:24th February, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2010 Date:24th February, 2010