THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1300 of 2009 (Dated : 26-10-2009) Between: State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant/Petitioner A n d Parepalli Kishore S/o late Jaihindabu Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District And another …Respondents/Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1300 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, filed by State, is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.11.2007 in Calendar Case No. 964 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, whereunder and whereby the respondent/Accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “ the Act”). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal, may be stated as follows: P.W.1, who is Food Inspector along with his Attender, inspected the shop of the accused on 17.12.2000 at about 1.30 pm and found 10 tins of 15 kgs. capacity each filled with groundnut oil without any label declaration or marking and kept along with other tins for sale to public for human consumption. On suspicion that it was adulterated, he purchased 450 grams of groundnut oil from the accused, divided it into three equal parts, and after observing necessary procedure, one sample was forwarded for analysis to the Public Analyst, who, after analysis, opined that the sample does not conform to the standard of Belier’s test (turbidity temperature- Acetic acid method) and contains cotton seed oil and was therefore, adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the competent authority, the complaint is lodged. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he denied the accusation made and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, three witnesses, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and 23 documents, Exs.P.1 toP.23 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, upon consideration of evidence on record, acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that there was a time gap of nearly one year four months between the date of submitting detailed report and the date of giving written consent and that the complaint is filed in the Court after a gap of nearly 24 months from the date of lifting the sample and so, the accused lost his valuable right to make a request to the concerned Magistrate to send the second sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the State. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) read with 2(ia)(m) and Seection 7(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954?. 7. Learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PW.1 is very clear that he purchased 450 grams of groundnut oil from the shop of the accused and that when the sample was sent to the analyst for analysis, he opined that the sample does not conform to the standards and therefore, it was adulterated and hence, the complainant proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless the contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Normally this court, sitting in an appeal against the order of acquittal, would not ordinarily interfere with the judgment unless there exists substantial or compelling reasons. Some of them are: (i) Perverse finding is given; (ii) Findings are not based upon evidence; (iii) Inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration; (iv) Admissible evidence has been overlooked. 9. The report of the public analyst would go to show that the sample does not conform to the standards of Belier’s test (turbidity temperature – Acetic acid method) and contains cotton seed oil, and therefore, it was adulterated. The sample was lifted on 17.12.2000, whereas the prosecution filed complaint on 02.1.2003. Thus, there is a delay of nearly two years between the date of lifting the sample and lodging the complaint. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the accused on 13.3.2003, thereby depriving the right of the accused to make a request to the concerned Magistrate to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory. There cannot be any dispute that the report given by the Director of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. Because of the delay of nearly two years in lodging the complaint, the second sample may not be fit for analysis by that time. As the valuable right conferred on the accused has been lost, no useful purpose would be served even if the accused makes a request to send the second sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 10. The appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment dated 19.11.2007 passed in C.C.No.964 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad. ____________ K.C.BHANU, J Dt. 26-10-2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1300 OF 2009 Date: 26.10.2009