HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.A.No. 76 of 2011 DATED: 07.02.2011 Between: The State of A.P., represented by the Public Prosecutor .. Appellant And 1. Cheemakurthi Rama Mohan Rao 2. Smt. Cheemakurthi Saayavathi .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- The State has preferred this Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 19.08.2008 delivered in C.C No. 359 of 2003 whereby the learned Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, having considered both oral and documentary evidence on record, found the respondents-accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 7(1), 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short “the Act”), and accordingly, acquitted them. The case of the complainant i.e. the Food Inspector, Eluru is that on 15.02.2002, at about 03.00 P.M., he along with his Attender, N.Kesava Reddy, inspected the business premises of the respondents-accused, and on suspicion that approximately 15 kgs. of Sago, which is found in a gunny bag, is adulterated, he purchased 750 grams of Sago by paying its price, and subsequently, sent a sample to the Public Analyst, who in turn, sent his report opining that the Sago is adulterated. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents-accused and perused the material placed on record. The Food Inspector received the analyst report from the Public Analyst on 08.04.2002 and filed a complaint in the Court on 13.11.2002, but the complaint was returned for compliance of certain objections, and the same was represented on 07.07.2003 after the objections were complied with. Therefore, there is a total lapse of nearly 14 months in filing the complaint. Thereafter, on 02.08.2003, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the respondents. From the above, it is clear that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent after a long lapse of time. The very purpose of issuing the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused is to enable them to get the third sample, which was deposited with the Court, sent to the Central Food Laboratory and get further opinion. Once the report sent by the Public Analyst was received by the Food Inspector on 08.04.2002, it is not known as to what the prosecution was doing for a period of 14 months and filed the complaint only on 07.07.2003. Even if the accused asked the Court to send the third sample to the Central Food Laboratory in pursuance of the notice, it might not serve the purpose as it must have lost its original value because of the abnormal delay. The trial Court, in fact, mainly relied on this aspect in acquitting the respondents, and its finding, in my considered view, is perfectly justified and needs no interference by this Court. Hence, I see no merits in this Criminal Appeal, and the same is, accordingly dismissed. ______________ 07.02.2011 bcj