The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu Criminal Appeal No.1375 of 2009 Judgment: 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 28th June, 2007, in C.C.No.397 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad, whereunder and whereby, the respondent-accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 7(i) & (ii), 2 (ia) (m) & 2 (ix) punishable under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the P.F.A.Act’). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 28.10.2004, P.W.1 along with his Attender inspected M/s.ABHI’s packaged drinking water unit situated at Dasnapur, Adilabad and found the accused, who is the proprietor of the unit, doing business. After disclosing his identity, P.W.1 secured the presence of P.W.3 and found 32 sealed packets of ABHI’s packaged drinking water, which were kept for sale to public for human consumption. P.W.1 purchased 30 sealed packets of water packets on suspicion that it was adulterated, divided them into three equal parts and placed into three clean, dry and empty plastic jars by following procedure and rules and forwarded one sample packet for analysis to the Public Analyst, who after conducting analysis, opined that the sample does not have BIS certification, not sterilized as declared on the label, does not conform to the standards of Aerobic Microbial Count and Coliform count, and therefore it was adulterated and misbranded. On 4.7.2005, written consent was issued by the Food (Health) Authority, A.P., for institution of prosecution against the accused. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged the complaint. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was a delay of about nine months in serving notice under Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A. Act from the date of lifting sample, and so, the accused has been denied of his valuable right, and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offence under Section 7(i) & (ii), 2 (ia) (m) & 2 (ix) punishable under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the P.F.A. Act, 1954. 8. The learned Counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that he purchased the ABHI’s packaged drinking water packets from the unit of accused, divided the same into three equal parts and sent one part therein to the Public Analyst; that the Public Analyst, in his report, opined that the sample was adulterated: that the accused has, in fact, not exercised his right conferred under Section 13 (2) of the Act and therefore, acquittal of the accused on the ground that he lost his valuable right is not sustainable, and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that 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 passed by the trial Court. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 10. P.W.1 purchased the article of food i.e., ABHI’s packaged drinking water packets, on 28.10.2004 from the shop of accused in the presence of P.W.3 and others, and after observing the necessary formalities, divided it into three equal parts and sent one sealed packet to Public Analyst for analysis. The Analyst, after analysis, opined in his report dated 10.12.2004 that the sample does not have BIS certification, not sterilized as declared on the label, does not conform to the standards of Aerobic Microbial Count and Coliform count, and therefore it was adulterated and misbranded. P.W.1 informed the same to the State Food Health Authority, which gave written consent order, dated 15.2.2005, to prosecute the accused. 11. It is not in dispute that the sample was lifted on 28.10.2004. Ex.P16-notice as required under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act was sent to the accused on 24.9.2005. The Food Inspector, who purchased the article of food, might not have added the preservative so as to keep the sample fit for analysis. Then the possibility of taking place of chemical changes in the sample cannot be ruled out. Sending statutory notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act to the accused is a valuable right conferred on him so as to enable him to make a request to the concerned Magistrate to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. In view of the delay of about nine months in issuing the notice as contemplated under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act from the date of lifting the sample, the valuable right conferred on the accused has been lost. There cannot be any dispute that the report given by the Director, Central Food Laboratory supercedes the report of Public Analyst. The trial Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused and the said order of acquittal does not suffer from any serious infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 28.6.2007, in C.C.No.397 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad. _____________ (K.C.Bhanu, J) 4th November, 2009 drk The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu Criminal Appeal No.1375 of 2009 Date: 04.11.2009 Between: The Food Inspector, Div.-I, Adilabad district, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Appellant And Yelti Prasanth Reddy …Respondent The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu Criminal Appeal No.1375 of 2009 04.11.2009