IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1287 OF 2009 BETWEEN: The Food Inspector, Zone-IV, Kadapa District, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …. Appellant AND 1. Y. Sreenivasulu S/o. Y. Anjaneyulu 2. K. Srinivasa Murthy 3. M/s. Wipro Ltd., Bangalore. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1287 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal under Sections 378 (4) (5) & (1) Cr.P.C., is filed by the appellant – Food Inspector, Zone-IV, Kadapa District, against the judgment dated 30-05-2006 in C.C. No.21 of 2002, passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet, whereunder and whereby the accused were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘PFA Act’) read with Rule 50 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short ‘PFA Rules’). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are stated as follows: On 20-12-2000 at about 11-30 AM, PW-1 Food Inspector of Kadapa, along with his staff inspected the shop Sree Srinivasa Traders. At that time, A-1 was present and transacting the business. PW-1 found about 150 packets of Wipro Vanapasti each containing 200 ml., kept for human consumption. Suspecting the quality of the article of food, PW.1 purchased six packets of Vanapasti and the same is divided into three parts and kept each part into corrugated boxes and labeled and prepared panchanama. Thereafter, on 21-12-2000 he sent one sample packet to Public Analyst for analysis, who after analysis opined that the sample does not conform to Red Units in respect of Baudouin’s test for sesame oil and therefore it is adulterated. After receiving the report from the Public Analyst, PW.1 submitted the same to the Director, Institution of Preventive Medicine and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad for further orders and after getting the written consent to prosecute A-1 to A-3, he lodged the complaint. 3. A charge under Section 7(i), 2 (ia) (m) of PFA Act read with Rule 50 of PFA Rules was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P-1 to P-24 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, found the accused not guilty on the ground that A-1 lost his opportunity to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory because of the delay and accordingly acquitted them. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 6. Learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, contended that the evidence of PW.1 is very clear and that he purchased six packets of Vanapasti from A-1 and one sample packet was sent to Public Analyst, that the report of the Public Analyst would clearly go to show that the Vanaspati in the sample packet was adulterated and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the offence with which they were charged ? 8. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless it is shown that a perverse finding is given by the trial Court or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or admissible evidence has been overlooked, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the same. There must be compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment under appeal. It is equally well settled that the appellate Court has got full power to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and to re-appreciate the evidence. 9. The Public Analyst who analyzed the sample of Vanaspathi opined that the sample does not conform to the Red Units in respect of Baudouin’s test for sesame oil and therefore, it was adulterated. The sample was lifted from the shop of A-1 on 20-12-2000. He sent the same to the Public Analyst on 21-12-2000 and the Analyst gave his report on 07-02-2001. Thereafter, PW.1 had addressed a letter to the Director, Food (Health) Authority to give written consent and PW.1 received the written consent from the Director on 14-12-2001. Then the complaint was filed on 03-01-2002. Thereafter, the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been issued. There was a delay of one year in issuing the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. 10. Section 13(2) of the Act reads as under: “13 (2):- On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. 11. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the accused has a right to make a request to the concerned Magistrate to send the second sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. There cannot be any dispute that the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. Even if A-1 make a request to the Court to send the second sample, no useful purpose would be served because notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act has been issued to A-1 after lapse of one year. The article of food would not be the same after lapse of one year due to chemical changes in the oil. Some times it would not fit for analysis also. It is futile exercise to make a request to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. The order of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmities and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment dated 30-05-2006 in C.C. No.21 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampet. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J October 23, 2009. KTL