HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2363 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The lower Court recorded acquittal of the accused/respondent for the offence under Section 16 (1- A) (i), 7(i) and (v), Section 2 (ia) (h) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act). The Food Inspector/PW.1 collected sample of Bengal gram dal and sent the same for analysis. The public analyst sent Ex.P.14 report opining that the sample does not conform to the standards of other edible grains and also contains lathyrus sativus which is injurious to health and is therefore adulterated. The lower Court based its conclusion on several somersaults made by PW.1 in his evidence with regard to dates of his visit to the shop of the accused and lifting the sample from that shop. In the complaint, it was stated that PW.1 inspected shop of the accused in the presence of the accused and another and that PW.1 took the sample on 18.01.2002 a n d despatched the same to the public analyst on 19.1.2002. PW.1 in his evidence reiterated that he went to shop of the accused on 29.01.2002 at 3.00 P.M. He further deposed that on 19.01.2002 he had drawn the sample. If date of inspection/visit of PW.1 of shop of the accused was on 29.01.2002, he could not have drawn the sample either on 18.01.2002 or on 19.01.2002 as it is a physical impossibility. It is evident that in order to help the accused, PW.1 gave the said dates which are irreconcilable. There is collusion between PW.1 and the accused in this case. In those circumstances, the lower Court rightly recorded acquittal of the accused. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ____________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt.13th December, 2011 PNV