THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1448 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, filed this appeal under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment, dated 22.02.2008 passed in S.T.C.No.1 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pakala, whereunder and whereby, the respondent/sole accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(ia)(m) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this case, may be stated as follows: P.W.1, who was the Food Inspector, inspected the shop of the accused, who was transacting the business, on 19.05.2005 at about 3.00 p.m. and found 20 kgs of coconut oil in two cans. Suspecting that it was adulterated, he purchased 750 ml of coconut oil and divided the same into three equal parts. After following due procedure, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst after analysis, opined that the sample does not conform to the standards of butyro – refracto meter reading at 40 degree centigrade, polanski value, iodine value, saponification value and unsaponifiable matter and it contained mineral oil and therefore, it was adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the competent authority, the complaint was lodged. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the accusation levelled against him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to show that the accused is the manufacturer of coconut oil or that he was the owner of the premises in question and accordingly, acquitted him. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant proved the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that he purchased 750 ml of coconut oil and the sample sent to the Public Analyst found to be adulterated and the public analyst report would clearly go to show that the sample does not conform to the standards prescribed under the Act and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 8. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under the law that the accused presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. However, this Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence to know whether the findings are passed on proper appreciation of evidence on record or any perverse finding was recorded or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or admissible evidence has been overlooked. In short, there must be substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. 9. Except oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no evidence to show that the oil mill belongs to P.W.1. On the other hand, the Panchayat Secretary, Pakala was examined as D.W.2. He categorically stated that Mamatha Rotary Oil Mill belonged to one Subramanyam Naidu, who was having two licenses, one for provisions shop and another for Mamatha Rotary Oil Mill. Except suggesting that he is speaking false, nothing has been elicited from his cross-examination. He is a responsible person to speak about the ownership of the Oil Mill as per the Gram Panchayat records. The prosecution failed to produce any document to show that the accused is the owner of the said Mamatha Rotary Oil Mill. Admittedly, the accused is not the owner of the Oil Mill. There is no evidence to show that he was transacting the business on behalf of Subramanyam Naidu. Therefore, mere presence of the accused does not ipso facto lead to irresistible conclusion that he was doing business on behalf of Subramanyam Naidu. The trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court, as there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. 13. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 22.02.2008 in S.T.C.No.1 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pakala. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 3rd NOVEMBER, 2009. kvni