IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1284 OF 2009 Between: The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Bukka Anjaiah ..... Respondent/Accused The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Sections 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short 'the Act'), in its judgment, dated 26.06.2006, in C.C.No.215 of 2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangaon. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows: The Food Inspector-P.W.1, Division-II, Warangal District, visited the business premises of the accused, M/s. Bukka Anjaiah Kirana and General Stores, situated at D.No.3-5-9, Station Road, Jangaon, along with his attender on 15.06.2002 at about 11.00 a.m. and at that time, the accused was transacting the business. P.W.1 found four sealed packets of one liter each with declaration of Vijaya Premium double filtered groundnut oil, Batch No.5, packed in May, 2002, M.R.P. Rs.51-57, EOP/AP/ZVI/003/MFD. On enquiry, the accused stated that the Vijaya Premium double filtered groundnut oil was meant for sale to public for human consumption. The accused disclosed that the Vijaya Premium double filtered groundnut oil was being manufactured by A.P. Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited, 9th Floor, Parishram Bhavan, Hyderabad. P.W.1, on suspicion that it was adulterated, purchased 375 grams of Vijaya Premium double filtered groundnut oil and divided the same into three equal parts. After following the due procedure, one sample packet was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst, after analysis, vide his report, dated 17.07.2002, opined that the sample does not conform to the standards of Belier’s Test (Turbidity temperature-acetic Acid) and therefore, it was adulterated. Thereafter, P.W.1 submitted a detailed report to the State Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, for consent. The State Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, has given a written consent under Section 20 (i) of the Act to launch prosecution against the accused. Thereafter, the complaint was filed. 3. When a charge under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P21. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. The accused himself was examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D1. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the ground that there was a delay of two years in serving the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly go to show that the article of sample was purchased from the shop of the accused; that as per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample does not conform to the standards of Belier’s Test (Turbidity temperature-acetic Acid) and the same was found to be adulterated; that mere delay in lodging the complaint may not be a ground to acquit the accused, and therefore, the accused committed offences punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act, and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal, the Appellate Court has got full power to reappreciate the evidence available on record, but it will slow in interfering with the findings in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless the contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. 10. Admittedly, P.W.1 found four sealed packets of one liter each with declaration of Vijaya Premium double filtered groundnut oil that was manufactured by A.P. Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited, 9th Floor, Parishram Bhavan, Hyderabad. It is not the case of P.W.1 that the accused meddled with the sealed packets of Vijaya Premium double filtered groundnut oil. It is in the evidence that when the sample which was taken from the shop of the accused was analysed by the Public Analyst, it does not conform to the standards of Belier’s Test (Turbidity temperature-acetic Acid) and the same was found to be adulterated. It is in the evidence that P.W.1 addressed a letter bearing No. Cr.Rc.No.ZV/WGL/06312, dated 22.10.2002, which was marked as Ex.P13, to the A.P. Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited, 9th Floor, Parishram Bhavan, Hyderabad, but there was no response. 11. The case of the accused is that he purchased the Vijaya Premium double filtered groundnut oil under the original of Ex.D1-bill, dated 21.05.2003. That aspect of the case has not been denied or disputed by the complainant. Therefore, the accused pleaded warranty. When it is not shown that the accused meddled with the article of food and he was selling the article of food in the same condition when he purchased from the A.P. Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited, Hyderabad, under the original of Ex.D1, he cannot be convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Similarly, there was abnormal delay of two years in lodging the complaint. The sample was taken by P.W.1 on 15.06.2002. The Public Analyst gave his report on 17.07.2002 and on 22.04.2003, the charge sheet was filed and notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act has been issued to the accused on 02.05.2003. Therefore, there was a delay of nearly 11 months. By that time, the article of food may not be in the same condition as it was for analysis. 12. Section 13 (2) of the Act reads thus: “On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.” 13. No doubt, in this case, admittedly, the accused has not availed the right contemplated under Section 13 (2) of the Act. But at the same time, after lapse of nearly 11 months, the article of food may not be fit for analysis because chemical changes and reactions may occur in case of groundnut oil. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served and true result may not come even if the sample is to be analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. Therefore, the trial Court, on these two grounds, rightly acquitted the accused. The said order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 26.06.2006, in C.C.No.215 of 2003, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Jangaon. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 22nd October, 2009 KL