IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1447 OF 2009 Between: The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Smt.J.Kasthuri & another ..... Respondents/Accused The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Sections 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondent/Accused No.1 of the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i), 7 (1) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short, “the Act”), vide judgment, dated 29.08.2008, in C.C.No.244 of 2003, passed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: P.W.1-Food Inspector, Division-II, Chittoor District, inspected the shop of Accused No.1 situated at Koneru Street, Tiruchanur under Tirupati Rural Mandal, on 23.01.2001 at about 1.00 p.m., along with his attender, and at that time, Accused No.1 was transacting the business. P.W.1 found 10 packets of Gingelly oil kept in almirah. On enquiry, Accused No.1 stated that the Gingelly oil is meant for sale for human consumption. P.W.1, on suspicion that it was adulterated, purchased three packets of Gingelly oil and made three samples. After following due procedure, one sample packet was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst, after analysis, opined that the sample does not conform the Belier’s Test (Turbidity Temperature Acetic Acid Method) and therefore, it was adulterated. Thereafter, P.W.1 submitted a detailed report to the Director, State Food and Health Authority, Hyderabad, for consent. The Director of the State Food and Health Authority, Hyderabad, has given a written consent to launch the prosecution against the accused. Thereafter, the complaint was filed. 3. The proceeding against Accused No.2 was quashed by this Court, vide order, dated 07.06.2006, in Crl.P.No.2763 of 2003. 4. When Accused No.1 was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i), 7 (1) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Act, he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P20. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence. 7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was an abnormal delay of two years from the date of taking sample and issuing the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act and accordingly acquitted Accused No.1. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against Accused No.1 of the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i), 7 (1) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 9. Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly go to show that P.W.1 purchased three packets of Gingelly oil from the shop of Accused No.1 and made three samples; that after following due procedure, one sample packet was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis; that as per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample does not conform the Belier’s Test (Turbidity Temperature Acetic Acid Method) and the same was found to be adulterated; that Accused No.1 committed offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i), 7 (1) and 2 (ia) (m) of the Act, and therefore, the complainant proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 10. 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 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. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons while interfering with the order of acquittal. 11. It is not in dispute that the case against Accused No.2 was quashed by this Court vide order, dated 07.06.2006, in Crl.P.No.2763 of 2003. While quashing the proceedings, this Court held thus: “This delay cannot be accounted for nor could be properly explained. This, in my view, has the effect of the accused losing his valuable right for requesting the Court to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, even if Section 13(2) Notice has been promptly served upon the accused. On this ground alone, the petition deserves to be allowed. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed.” 12. The case of Accused No.1 also stands on the same footings. The sample was lifted from the shop of Accused No.1 on 23.01.2001. The Public Analyst gave the report on 30.04.2001. The written consent was obtained from the competent authority on 10.07.2002. The complaint was filed on 13.02.2003 and notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act has been sent to Accused No.1. There was a delay of two years from the date of lifting of sample till the receipt of the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act. 13. 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.” 14. Admittedly, Accused No.2 was the manufacturer of the said oil. When the case against Accused No.2 was dismissed by this Court, the same benefit of doubt should be extended to Accused No.1 also. No doubt, the accused has not filed any application to send the second sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, but at the same time, no useful purpose would be served even if the sample is to be analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, because of abnormal delay. The article of food may not be in tact and same as it was lifted from the shop of the accused because so many chemical changes would take place in the article of food because of the abnormal delay. 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. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 29.08.2008, in C.C.No.244 of 2003, on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 5th November, 2009 KL