IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1286 OF 2009 BETWEEN: The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …. Appellant AND Peerla Shakshavali S/o. MohammedKareem …. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1286 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal under Sections 378 (1) & (3) Cr.P.C. is filed by the appellant - State against the judgment dated 03-10-2007 in C.C. No.52 of 2006 passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, whereunder and whereby the accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 (V) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘PFA Act’) and sub-Rule 28 of Rules 49 and 50(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short ‘PFA Rules’). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal may be stated as follows: On 14-04-2005, PW.1 G. Vasudeva Reddy, Food Inspector along with attender S. Adinarayana, visited the manufacturing unit of Sujala packaged drinking water unit. The accused was present in the unit and transacting the business. PW.1 enquired the accused about the Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) certificate and licence for manufacturing of packaged drinking water. The accused did not produce the same and processed the water and filled it in the cans for sale, for human consumption. Therefore, PW.1 drafted Panchanama and submitted a report along with a copy of panchanama to the Director, Food Health Authority, Hyderabad to launch prosecution against the accused. After receipt of written order in R.C. No.7353/F1/2005, dated 20-08-2005 from the Director, Food Health Authority, PW.1 lodged the complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 7(V) of the PFA Act and sub-Rule 28 of Rules 49 and 50(1) of the PFA Rules. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section 7(V) of the PFA Act and sub-Rule 28 of Rules 49 and 50(1) of the PFA Rules, he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 5. The trial Court after consideration of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to show that the accused is the owner of Sujala Packaged Drinking Water unit and therefore acquitted him. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed by the State. 6. The learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, contended that the evidence of PW.1, Food Inspector, is very clear that the accused has not produced any certificate or licence issued by BIS and therefore the complainant proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the complainant proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the offences punishable under Section 7(V) of the PFA Act and sub- Rule 28 of Rules 49 and 50(1) of the PFA Rules ? 8. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless it is shown that a perverse finding is given by the trial Court or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or admissible evidence has been overlooked, normally, this Court would not interfere with the same. There must be compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment under appeal. It is equally well settled that the appellate Court has got full power to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and to re-appreciate the evidence. 9. The ground on which the accused was acquitted is that the complainant had failed to produce any documentary evidence that the accused has no licence or certificate issued by BIS. Except the oral evidence of PW.1, there is no other evidence to show that the accused has not produced the BIS licence or certificate. PW.1 claimed that he has made enquiries with the owner of Sujala Packaged Drinking Water unit by name Peerla Shakshavali. He has not filed any record to show that the accused was the owner of the said unit and was doing drinking water business on the date of occurrence. Admittedly, he did not seize any property or sample packets of the water. So, in the absence of any evidence to show that the accused was the proprietor of Sujala Packaged Drinking Water Unit, the trial Court rightly acquitted him. The order of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmities calling for any interference by this Court. 10. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 03-10-2007 in C.C. No.52 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J October 23, 2009. KTL