HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Crl.A.No. 53 of 2010 DATED: 29.01.2010 Between:- The State of A.P. rep. By the Public Prosecutor .. Appellant And Pattan Abdulla Bashu .. Respondent/ Accused JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment, dated 03-01-2008 delivered in C.C. No. 819 of 2006 by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, whereunder and whereby, the respondent-accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) read with Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”). 2) The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector, Division-III, Guntur District, on 29.04.2003, at about 04.35 P.M., inspected the business premises of the respondent-accused. On suspicion that 6 sealed packets each containing 500 ML of Double Filtered Ground Nut Oil, which were meant for sale for human consumption, were adulterated, he purchased 3 oil packets from the accused by paying the price. After dividing the oil into three equal parts, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who in turn, sent his report opining that the sample does not conform to the standards of Butyro-refractometer reading at 40 degree centigrade and Bellier’s (Tubidity temperature acetic acid method), and was therefore, adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Laboratories and Food (Health) Administration, Hyderabad, the complainant lodged a complaint against the respondent-accused before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. 3) When a charge under Section 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4) To substantiate the charge leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22 on its behalf. No witnesses were examined nor got marked any documents on behalf of the defence. 5) The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the accused not guilty, and accordingly, acquitted him. Challenging the judgment of acquittal, the complainant-State has filed the present Criminal Appeal. 6) Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) read with Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Act, beyond all reasonable doubt? 7) Counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PW1 is very clear that he purchased the article of Food in question from the accused and the Analyst Report would clearly go to show that it was adulterated, and therefore, she prays to set aside the judgment of acquittal. 8) There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Ordinarily, the appellate Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal unless the finding of the trial Court is shown to be perverse or contrary to law and not based upon any evidence. 9) PW1, Food Inspector, purchased 3 Groundnut Oil Packets from the shop of the accused on 29.04.2003, and one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who issued Ex.P12 - report, opining that it does not conform to the standards of Butyro-refractometer reading at 40 degree centigrade and Bellier’s (Tubidity temperature acetic acid method), and therefore, adulterated. Admittedly, the analyst report was received on 30.05.2003 and notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the accused on 13.10.2005. Therefore, there was abnormal delay of about one and a half years from the date of receipt of the report to the date of sending notice to the accused, and therefore, the valuable right conferred on the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act to make a request to the Magistrate concerned to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, has been lost. In view of the delay caused in serving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, even if the accused had made a request to the Magistrate concerned to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, no useful purpose would have been served, because the article of food by that time, might not be fit for analysis and the true values would not come inasmuch as the article of food, at best, can be used before three months from the date of its manufacture. Therefore, the trial Court, after elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment impugned in this appeal. 10) Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 03-01-2008 in C.C. No. 819 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J. 29th January, 2010 bcj