THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.51 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal, under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {Cr.P.C.}, by the State is directed against the judgment dated 17.04.2007 in C.C.No.25 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, whereunder and whereby the accused was found not guilty for the offences under Section 7 (i) and 2 (i-a) (m) and under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 {“the Act” for brevity}. 2. The allegation in the complaint would go to show that on 28.05.2004 at 9.30 a.m., the Food Inspector inspected the diet room in District Hospital, Tenali and found the accused-the Diet Contractor maintaining the supply of meals on contract basis to the patients and found one aluminum vessel containing curd kept for human consumption. Suspecting that it was adulterated, he purchased 600 grams of Dahi and after following the due procedure and dividing the same into three parts, one part was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst, after analysis, opined that the sample of Dahi was deficient in milk fat by about 81.0% and deficient in solid not fat by about 17.0% and it was, therefore, adulterated. On receipt of written consent for launching prosecution, he filed a complaint. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 7 (i) and 2 (i-a) (m) and under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed tobe tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and Ex.X1. No evidence, either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the ground that there was abnormal delay in filing the complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred this appeal. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case for the offences under Section 7 (i) and 2 (i-a) (m) and under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. 7. Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that P.W.1 lifted the sample–Dahi from the diet room being maintained by the accused, which was adulterated, as opined by the Public Analyst and therefore, the trial Court was not correct in acquitting the accused. 8. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved and that presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless a finding is shown to be as improper or not based upon any admissible evidence, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the same. There must be compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order. 9. As seen from the complaint, the article of food i.e. Dahi was purchased on 28.05.2004 by P.W.1 and he sent one part of the sample to the Public Analyst, who gave report on 01.07.2004. The written consent was obtained on 28.09.2004 and the statutory notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act informing the accused to make a request to the Magistrate concerned to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory was served on the accused on 08.01.2005. Therefore, there was abnormal delay in informing the accused and thereby, depriving his valuable right conferred under Section 13 (2) of the Act, by which time the article of food in question may not be fit for analysis. No doubt, the accused has not made any request to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory but at the same time, no useful purpose would be served for making such request because of the abnormal delay. True value of article of food in question may not come because of the delay. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment impugned. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment dated 17.04.2007 in C.C.No.25 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 28th January 2010 RRB