THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1296 OF 2009. DATED: 30-10-2009. Between: State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Appellant/Complainant and 1.Natakala Balaji and another …Respondents/Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1296 OF 2009. JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal by the State under Section 378 (1) and (3) Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of acquittal of the 1st respondent-A1 of the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) (ii) 2 (ia) (b) and 2 (ix) (k) r/w Rules 23, 29 and 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajampet, vide judgment, dated 11- 04-2007, in C.C.No.352 of 2001. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: On 23-12-1999, P.W.1 inspected the shop of A1 and found 180 packets of Veena Sweet Supari. Suspecting them adulterated, he purchased 18 packets and when he sent one sealed packet to the analyst, he opined that the sample contain synthetic food colours tartrazine and carmosine and was adulterated. After obtaining written consent, he filed the complaint. 3. The case against A2 was split up by the trial Court and proceeded trial against A1. When A1 was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) (ii) 2 (ia) (b) and 2 (ix) (k) r/w Rules 23, 29 and 50 of the Act, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P28. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record acquitted the accused. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the State. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) (ii) 2 (ia) (b) and 2 (ix) (k) r/w Rules 23, 29 and 50 of the Act? 7. Counsel representing the learned Public prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that the article of food was purchased from the shop of the accused, that after analysis, it was found that the article of food was adulterated and hence, she prays to set aside the order 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 is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless the findings are perverse or not based upon any evidence, normally this Court will not interfere with the same. 9. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 purchased Veena Supari Packet, which were kept in the shop of the accused for sale for human consumption. The sample packet was sent to the analyst and after analysis, it was opined that it contain synthetic food colours tartrazine and carmosine and was adulterated. It is the admitted case of A1 that Ex.P5 –furnished bill would go to show that he purchased the sample from A2. It is not in dispute that A1 was selling the article of food in question in the same condition when he purchased it under Ex.P5. Therefore, it is not a case of A1 meddling with the article of food in question. Even P.W.1 admitted that there was no tampering of the sealed article of food in the hands of A1. Therefore, A1 is entitled to benefit of doubt in view of Section 19 (2) of the Act. In view of the fact that the case against A2 was split up and separated in the trial Court itself, the appeal has to be dismissed insofar as A2 is concerned and is dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 11-04-2007, in C.C.No.352 of 2001, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajampet. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:30-10-2009 Hsd