IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1058 of 2005 Between: The Food Inspector, Circle-3, MCH, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Achyuth Reddy and 3 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.101 of 2003 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i), 7(ii) and 2 (ix) (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”) and Rule 32 (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, (for short “the Rules”) by the judgment dated 25-11-2004 made the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor prefer this appeal. The factual background for the appeal is that the Food Inspector, Circle-3, M.C.H., Hyderabad, prosecuted the four accused alleging that on 14-05-2001, he inspected the premises M/s. Trinethra Super Market at Gandhinagar, Hyderabad, where the first accused was the vendor and he purchased three sealed packets of Hemalatha Coconut Kharam Powder under a cash receipt for Rs.45/- before independent mediators and duly sealed the samples and obtained signatures including those of the first accused on the paper slips affixed and other documents. The sealed packets had labelled declarations of net weight, date of manufacture, maximum retail price, ingredients and that the product was best before six months from the date of manufacture manufactured by M/s. Hemalatha Food Products, Hyderabad. One sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, who opined that the sample contained common salt, which was not declared on the label and the sample also did not conform to the labelling Rule 32 (e) and hence, misbranded. The Food Inspector issued a notice to the manufacturer and obtained the details relating to M/s. Trinethra Super Market from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. Accordingly, a detailed report was given to the Director of State Food (Health) Authority, and after obtaining a written consent, the prosecution was launched. After appearance of the accused and furnishing copies of documents to them after the case was taken cognizance, the Food Inspector was examined as PW.1, after which the accused were examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when they denied the offence. During trial, PW.1 was recalled and further examined and Exs.P.1 to P.37 were marked. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they did not produce any defence evidence. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment, firstly, concluding that the sample was misbranded and also holding that Rule 32 (e) of the Rules as amended from time to time was violated. However, the trial Court found that the samples were in a sealed condition by the time of inspection and seizure even according to PW.1 and therefore, accused 1 to 3 are protected by Section 19 (2) of the Act and Rule 12 A of the Rules. As there was no dispute regarding the supply of article of food, the samples of which were taken by PW.1, by M/s. Hemalatha Food Products to M/s. Trinethra Super Market, represented by A-1 to A-3 and as a warranty was given by the manufacturer as per the statutory rules, the trial Court gave the benefit of the statutory protection to the accused 1 to 3, more so, due to the admission in Ex.P.21 by the husband of the fourth accused that they were supplying the pickle to the firm represented by A-1 to A-3. The trial Court, referring to the sanction order, observed that Ex.P.23 information for M/s. Hemalatha Food Products specifically mentioned one A. Kondal Rao to be in charge of and responsible for the business and permission was never sought for to prosecute his wife, the fourth accused herein. The trial Court noted that the sanction for prosecution of the fourth accused under such circumstances was without any application of mind and relying on a binding precedent from this Court, held that the so- called sanction against the fourth accused was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure. On these two grounds, notwithstanding the conclusions of the trial Court on the other aspects, the trial Court acquitted all the four accused. The appellant contends herein that mere discrepancies in the evidence or mere procedural irregularities could not have vitiated the credibility of the consistent evidence of the prosecution witness and more so, in view of the compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Statute and the Rules. Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Sri K. Chaitanya, learned counsel representing the respondents/accused are heard. The point for consideration is whether the benefit of reasonable doubt given by the trial Court to the accused 1 to 4 or any of them can be interfered with in this appeal? It is true that the conclusions of the trial Court about the sample being misbranded and being in violation of Rule 32 (e) of the Statutory Rules was not challenged in any manner by any accused and the accused earned an acquittal notwithstanding the findings about the article of food being susceptible to attract the penal provisions under the statute. However, the facts on which the trial Court gave the benefit to the accused are also not in question. The labelled declaration on the sealed containers of the article of food in question clearly brings the accused 1 to 3 within the protection of Section 19 (2) of the Act and Rule 12 A of the Rules, more so, in the light of admission of the husband of fourth accused, the proprietress of the manufacturer about their selling the article of food in sealed packets to M/s. Trinethra Super Market, represented by A-1 to A-3. The article of food was found uninterfered with in the sealed packet by the time of inspection and accused 1 to 3 could not have been accused of knowing the quality of the contents and could not have been found guilty on any deficiency in such quality. Even concerning the fourth accused, it is clearly seen from Ex.P.24 that as per the letter of the manufacturer dated 10-07- 2001, it was clearly specified that A. Kondal Rao was in charge of the business and conducting day to day business transactions of the manufacturer. The provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act like Section 17 obviously lay down the statutory intendment to make only the persons in charge of and responsible to a concern for the conduct of its business responsible for any adulteration of article of food manufactured or otherwise dealt with by such concern and not all persons, who are connected with such concern. It may be that the fourth accused happened to own the manufacturing concern even for which there is no positive material on record. But, the Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine directing the prosecution of the fourth accused in Ex.P.25 dated 03-01-2003 on the strength of Ex.P.24, which never recommended the prosecution of the fourth accused, cannot be sustained. The conclusions of the trial Court about the patent non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority in this regard cannot be deviated from and under the circumstances, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-12-2009 Ksn