IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.A.No.2403 OF 2004. Date:05.08.2011 Between:- The Food Inspector, F.S., N.Guda, Hyderabad, rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Appellant And Arramballi Linga Reddy and another. .. Accused/Respondents JUDGMENT:- The lower Court acquitted A.1 and A.2 of the offences punishable under Section 2 (ia) (m), 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, ‘the Act’) on the ground that there is delay of eight months in filing the charge sheet after receipt of public analyst report and that while lifting the sample, the Food Inspector did not add preservative. 2. The sample lifted in this case is of toddy. A.29.01 of Appendix B of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short, ‘the Rules’) specify the standards for toddy. As per Ex.P-11-public analyst report, the sample does not conform to the standards of alcohol content, total acidity and volatile acidity and as it contains Alprazolam, it is adulterated. A.29.01 of Appendix B does not specify that the toddy should not contain Alprazolam. In case Alprazolam is contained in the toddy, it becomes an offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1994 as it is a psychotropic substance. Insofar as A.29.01 of Appendix B is concerned, it prescribes that toddy should not contain any sedative or tranquilizer. The public analyst report does not say that Alprazolam is a sedative or tranquilizer. 3. The samples were lifted by the Food Inspector in this case on 14.08.1998. The public analyst report was received on 18.09.1998. After obtaining sanction/consent for prosecution, the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector on 08.04.1999. Thus, there is lapse of eight months in filing the complaint in the lower Court from the date of lifting the sample. In the absence of addition of any preservative by the Food Inspector, the sample product becomes further deteriorated by way of further putrification, resulting in further increase in total acid content and volatile acid content. In view of non addition of preservative to the sample, and in view of lapse of eight months from the date of collection of the sample, and issue of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the lower Court rightly observed that the accused has lost valuable defence of obtaining second opinion from the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, by sending second sample to that laboratory. The said ground relied upon by the lower Court for acquitting the accused, is legal and valid. There are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 4. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _​__________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 05th August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.A.No.2403 OF 2004. Date:05.08.2011 AMD