THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1430 OF 2004 ORDER: This appeal at the instance of the State is directed against the acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.143 of 2001 by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise), Karimnagar on 07.11.2001. The accused therein was prosecuted for the offence under Sections 16 (1) (a) (ii), 7 (i) & (ii) (ia) (f) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the prosecution that on 11.07.1997 at 1.00 P.M., P.W.1 visited the shop of the accused situated at Ghadimahal road, Manakondur and found 14 kgs of thil in open tin apart from other articles and on enquiry by P.W.1, the accused stated that it was meant for sale. Then P.W.1 called P.W.2 to act as panch witness and also P.W.3, who was present along with him, and in their presence, he purchased 450 grams of thil from the accused and paid Rs.11/- and obtained cash receipt and he served Form-6 notice on the accused showing his intention to send the purchased articles for analysis. Then P.W.1 divided the purchased thil into 3 equal parts and poured them in 3 separate dry and clean plastic covers, which were shown to the accused and poured each part into jars and sealed them and pasted labels on each jar. P.W.1 also pasted the paper slips issued by the Director, institute of preventive medicine on the said jars and a panchanama was drafted with regard to the process conduced by them in the presence of mediators and he dispatched one of the samples to the Public Analyst, SFL, Nacharam on 12.07.1997 and dispatched remaining 2 samples to the Local health authority for safe custody. On 19.02.1998, P.W.1 received a report from public analyst opining that the sample is insect infested and therefore adulterated. Thereafter P.W.1 addressed a letter dated 20.02.1998 to the accused to obtain his business particulars, but the accused did not furnish any information, then P.W.1 sent a detailed report to the director, institute of preventive medicine and obtained sanction order and launched prosecution against the accused by filing the charge sheet on 24.09.1998. When the accused was examined under Sections 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 16 (1) (a) (ii), 7 (i) and (ii) (ia) (f) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, he denied about the offence alleged against him. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.22. On behalf of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found that the prosecution has failed to establish the offences alleged against the accused and thereby acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the offences under Sections 16 (1) (a) (ii), 7 (i) and (ii) (ia) (f) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: The lower Court has acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the P.W.1 has not taken the samples in clean and dry bottles and there is a delay of 45 days in receiving the public analyst report after its analysis and in view of the delay the accused lost his right to send the 2nd sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. The Additional Public Prosecutor has pleaded that P.W.1 has categorically mentioned in the panchanama that the samples were taken in clean and dry jars. Thus, there is no violation of Rules 14, 15 and 16 framed under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Even though P.W.1 has stated that he has taken the samples in a clean and dry jars, P.W.3, who is the mediator and attender working under P.W.1, has categorically stated in his cross-examination that the jars were purchased on every day of inspection. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and panchanama Ex.P.4 do not disclose that after purchasing the said jars on the date of inspection they were cleaned and dried before pouring the samples into the jars. Thus, the learned Magistrate has rightly observed that the prosecution could not establish that the samples were taken in clean and dry jars as required under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. With regard to analyzing the samples, admittedly the samples were analyzed and found adulterated as per Ex.P.9. Ex.P.9 was dated 20.08.1997 and it was dispatched in the month of February, 1998. The prosecution has not given any explanation with regard to the delay in dispatching the analyst report after analysis of the samples by the public analyst. Moreover, in view of the delay caused in issuing 13 (2) notice to the accused, he lost his valuable right. Under Section 13 (2) of the Act the accused has got right to ask for sending the remaining samples to the Central Food Laboratory. In view of the delay caused by the prosecution in launching the prosecution and issuing notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, the accused deprived of his statutory right and thereby prejudice was caused to him. Thus, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, the prosecution has violated the provisions of the Rule 14 and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Hence, the prosecution could not establish the offences alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 14th October, 2011 Ksp