HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2030 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The State ﬁled this appeal against acquittal of A.1 to A.3/respondents 1 to 3 recorded by the lower Court for the oﬀence under Section 16 (i) (a), 7 (i) and (v) and Section 2 (ia) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act). 2. The Food Inspector//PW.1 lifted sample of groundnut oil (paras brand) from the shop of A.1 at Adilabad by following due procedure prescribed and sent one of the samples to the public analyst for analysis. The public analyst, Hyderabad sent report after analysis to the eﬀect that the sample does not conform to Bellier’s Test (turbidity temperature acetic acid method) and contains palmolein oil and is therefore adulterated. PW.1 obtained the samples from sealed packets. A.1 furnished the required particulars including purchase bill to the eﬀect that he purchased the same from A.2 who is the distributor of the said brand of oil. As per label declaration, A.3 is found to be the manufacturer of the said brand of oil. It is stated by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that A.2 furnished information to PW.1 to the eﬀect that A.2 obtained this product from the manufacturer A.3. After obtaining necessary written consent, PW.1 launched the prosecution by way of ﬁling a complaint against A.1 to A.3. 3. The lower Court recorded acquittal of the accused on several grounds. Simply because the two mediators PWs.2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case, it is no ground to disbelieve PW.1’s evidence which is based on documentary proof containing signatures of A.1 on the statutory documents ﬁled by the prosecution. Evidence of PW.1 alone is suﬃcient to prove the fact of lifting the samples by the Food Inspector for the purpose of sending the same to public analyst for analysis. 4. The respondents’ case is that PW.1 is a Food Inspector in Karimnagar and that he has no jurisdiction to lift a sample from Adilabad. It is evidence of PW.1 that on the oral instructions of Assistant Food Controller and Deputy Food Controller, he went to the shop of A.1 and took the samples. It is not his case that the said higher oﬃcials who have got jurisdiction within the zone and within the State to lift samples were also accompanying PW.1 at the time of taking the samples. Therefore, it is a case where PW.1 alone went along with mediators to lift the samples from the shop of A.1. The 3rd respondent’s counsel relied upon Rule 11 of the A.P.Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1957, which reads as follows: “Jurisdiction of Food Inspector:- A Food Inspector shall exercise the powers and duties conferred on or delegated to him under the Act within the local area in respect of which he holds office:”. Therefore it is for PW.1 to justify his exercise of power under the Act at Adilabad which is admittedly not within his local jurisdiction. He relies on oral instructions of his superior oﬃcers and they do not confer any authority of PW.1 under law to lift the samples outside his local jurisdiction of Karimnagar. The 3rd respondent’s counsel placed reliance on Food Inspector v Puneriya Kishore Kumar[1], The Food Inspector MCH Hyderabad v Anthoni and Thomas Desousa[2], The Food Inspector, Karimnagar District v Devramji Babulal[3] and Food Inspector, Div.IV, III, R.R.District v Mudrakola Hari Desai[4] of this Court on this aspect. Hence, I accept ﬁnding of the lower Court that PW.1 had no local jurisdiction to lift the samples from A.1’s shop at Adilabad as PW.1 was Food Inspector at Karimnagar. 5. It is contended by the respondent’s counsel that sanction in this case is not in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Act. Reliance is placed o n Consumer Action Group v Cadbury India Limited[5] of the Supreme Court in this regard. It was a case where on facts the Supreme Court found that the sanctioning authority gave written consent speciﬁcally for A.1 only and not for A.2 and A.3. In the case on hand, it is not so. From the written consent in this case it cannot be distinguished that it was given in respect of only one or some of the accused and not in respect of all the accused. Therefore, I ﬁnd that written consent given under Section 20(i) of the Act is in accordance with law. Therefore in view of the Food Inspector lacking local jurisdiction over the area of A.1, the prosecution has to fail. The lower Court rightly recorded acquittal in this case. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt.7th December, 2011. PNV [1] 2004(2) FAC 287 [2] 1990(1) FAC 66 (A.P.) [3] 2008(1) FAC 50 [4] 2005(2) FAC 143 [5] 2000(1) FAC 136