THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.107 OF 2010. DATED:22-01-2010. Between: State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. … Appellant/complainant and 1.G.Krishna Reddy and another (case against A2 was split up and numbered as CC107/06) …Respondents/accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.107 OF 2010. JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal by the State under Section 378 (3) and (1) Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of acquittal of the respondent-A1 of the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) 2 (ia) (i) r/w 16 (1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’), recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Excise, Guntur, vide judgment, dated 21-02-2007, in C.C.No.513 of 2004. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: On 15-04-2000 P.W.1-Food Inspector along with office attender (P.W.2), inspected the shop of A1, who was transacting business at that time, and found plastic bottles. On enquiry, A1 disclosed that it is ABHI brand mineral water bottles kept for sale to public for human consumption. On suspicion that the water was adulterated, he purchased three bottles and divided the same into three parts. One of the samples was sent to Public Analyst, who after analysis opined that the sample contained yeast and was therefore, adulterated. After obtaining sanction, complaint was filed for the above offence. 3. When a charge under Section 7 (i) 2 (ia) (i) r/w 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, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record acquitted the accused on the ground that the article of food in question does not come within the meaning of Section 2 (v) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the State. 7. Heard, the counsel representing the learned public prosecutor and perused the judgment. 8. Now, the point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the charge under Section 7 (i) 2 (ia) (i) r/w 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 9. In dealing with the order of acquittal, the appellate Court is slow in interfering with the same because there is presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless the findings are perverse or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or admissible evidence was overlooked, normally this Court would not interfere with the same. 10. Admittedly, water is included in the definition of article of food by virtue of Gazette Notification, dated 21-03-2001, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Prior to that notification, the Article of food means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes…. Admittedly, the sample was lifted on 15-04-2000 when P.W.1 visited the shop of A1 and seized ABHI brand mineral water bottles, which were admittedly adulterated. There cannot be any dispute that ex post facto laws would apply prospectively. Therefore, by the date of lifting the sample, water is not an article of food within the meaning of Section 2 (v) of the Act. The trial Court after recording reasons, rightly acquitted the accused and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 21-02-2007, in C.C.No.513 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I class for Excise, Guntur. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:22-01-2010 Hsd