IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2093 of 2004 DATE: 19.12.2011 Between: The Food Inspector, Ananthapur, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, …… Appellant And P.Rama Mohan …… Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2093 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The lower Court acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act). Questioning the same, the State filed this appeal. P.W-1/Food Inspector took sample of Bengal Gramdal from shop of the accused at Nallamada village on 28.01.1997 and sent one of the samples to the public analyst on 29.01.1997. After analysis, the public analyst sent report dated 05.03.1997 opining that the sample does not conform to the standards of weevilled grains and uric acid contents and was adulterated. Written consent under Section 20 of the Act was given for prosecution of the accused on 14.07.1998. After food inspector filed the complaint before the Magistrate, it was taken cognizance for the above offence on 11.08.1998. It is only subsequently thereafter food inspector gave notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 14.08.1998. The lower Court recorded acquittal of the accused on the ground that there is possibility of developing of weevilled grain in case the sample is kept in airtight packet. P.W-1 admitted that he did not find any weeivilled grains at the time of taking sample. He further says that formation of Uric Acid was because of weevilled grains and that weevilled grains can be detected with naked eyes with his experience. It is only because of keeping the sample in airtight container, weevilled grains developed and presence of uric acid is due to development of weevilled grains in the food item. 2) When there is likelihood of development of weevilled grains due to airtight packing, no purpose will be served even if second sample is sent to the Central Food Laboratory for second analysis because there will be further formation of weevilled grains and consequential presence of uric acid in that sample due to lapse of time from 28.01.1997 to 14.08.1998. There is long and inordinate unexplained delay in filing complaint in this case and in giving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused. In these circumstances, the lower Court rightly recorded acquittal against the accused in this case. 3) Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 19, 2011 ksh