THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2364 of 2004 BETWEEN: The Food Inspector, Div-II … Appellant AND 1. Pogaku Venkateshwarlu & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2364 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The Public Prosecutor filed this appeal questioning acquittal of A1 and A2 of the offence punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) on the ground that Section 10(7) of the Act was not complied with in this case. 2. A1 is proprietor of M/s.P.Venkateshwarlu Kirana and General Merchant at Duggondi Village of Warangal District. A2 is proprietor of M/s.Vijayalaxmi Haldi Products, Warangal. On 15.05.1998 at about 10:15A.M., the Food Inspector (PW1) visited shop of A1 at Duggondi Village and collected samples of Haldi powder of Vijayalaxmi brand by paying its price and by following the procedure prescribed by law. At that time, Ex.P10- Panchanama was prepared by PW1 in the presence of one mediator who was examined as PW2. When one of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis, the Public Analyst sent Ex.P19-Analyst Report opining that the sample does not conform to the standards of Ash insoluble in dilute Hydrochloric Acid and that it also contains an oil soluble synthetic colour which is injurious to health and that rice starch is found and that therefore, it is adulterated. Thereupon, after obtaining consent from the State Food Authority, PW1 filed complaint in the lower Court against A1 and A2 on the ground that A1 is the seller and A2 is the manufacturer of the sample Haldi in this case. During trial in the lower Court, PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution totally. PW1 alone spoke to the contents of the complaint and marked relevant documents. The lower Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution did not comply with Section 10(7) of the Act, since the Food Inspector took only one mediator and since the said mediator turned hostile to the prosecution. 3. It is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor placing reliance on State of U.P. Vs. Hanif[1] that there is no non-compliance of Section 10(7) of the Act in this case and that even if PW2 did not support the prosecution case, the lower Court should have seen whether evidence of PW1 is reliable and acceptable. The supreme Court observed: “ It is not the law that the evidence of Food Inspector must necessarily need corroboration from independent witnesses. Evidence of the Food Inspector is not inherently suspected, not be rejected on that ground. He discharges the public function in purchasing an article of food for analysis and if the article of food so purchased in the manner prescribed under the Act is found adulterated, he is required to take action as per law. He discharges public duty. His evidence is to be decided on its own merits and if found acceptable, the Court would be entitled to accept and rely on to prove prosecution case. If in an important case where the factum of the very purchase is to be in question and any personal allegations are made against the Food Inspector, perhaps it may be necessary for the prosecution to dispel the doubt and to examine the panch witnesses seeking corroboration to the evidence of the Food Inspector.” 4. Section 10(7) of the Act contemplates calling one or more persons to be present at the time when the Food Inspector takes any action under the Act. There is no legal duty on the Food Inspector to employ at least two mediators. Even if one mediator is employed, it is sufficient compliance of Section 10(7) of the Act. On reading of the entire evidence of PW1 in this case, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he was speaking in Court in accordance with the documents which he filed. There is no need for other corroboration of PW1’s evidence as those documents corroborate his evidence. There are no circumstances to disbelieve PW1’s evidence in this case. 5. Though the Additional Public Prosecutor was successful in attacking finding of the lower Court on Section 10(7) of the Act, the prosecution could not establish compliance of legal requirements under Section 11(4) and Section 13(2) of the Act in this case. There is no evidence in this case much less PW1 spoke as to when the second sample collected by the Food Inspector was sent to Court in compliance of Section 11(4) of the Act. No second sample is marked as a material object in this case. There is no proof of compliance of Section 11(4) of the Act in this case. 6. The Food Inspector traced the manufacturer of Vijayalaxmi brand Haldi powder as A2 from label declaration only. A1 did not produce any receipt or voucher to show that he purchased this product from A2. After obtaining management particulars of A2’s business, the Food Inspector launched the prosecution against A2 also. In the absence of any proof that it was A2 who sold the product to A1, A2 cannot be mulcted with criminal liability in this case. There is no proof of A2 manufacturing Haldi powder in respect of which PW1 collected samples from A1’s shop. Details of the label declaration are not given by PW1 in his evidence. Since the sample product is a food product, there will be expiry date or at least ‘best before’ date for the product. The prosecution did not show that PW1 complied with the statutory notice under Section 13(2) of the Act before the expiry date or the ‘best before’ date contained on the label of the product. The sample was collected in this case on 15.05.1998. Report of the public analyst was received by PW1 on 22.06.2008. Sanction/consent for prosecution was received as per Ex.P21 on 25.09.1998. PW1 filed the complaint in the lower Court on 03.10.1998 and the lower Court took cognizance of the offence against the accused on 09.10.1998. Ex.P26, notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was given by PW1 to the accused on 16.10.1998. There is no evidence to show whether the product was within its expiry date by the date of Ex.P26-notice under Section 13(2). There is no proof that valuable defence of the accused for sending second sample to the Central Food Laboratory could be exercised by the accused even after receipt of Ex.P26-notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. Thus, in the absence of proof of compliance of the requirements under Section 11(4) and Section 13(2) of the Act, the prosecution will not succeed in this appeal inspite of demonstrating that finding of the lower Court on Section 10(7) of the Act, is erroneous. 7. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to reverse the acquittal of the accused recorded by the lower Court. 8. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:03.08.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2364 of 2004 Dt:03.08.2011 ysk [1] AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 1121