THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1298 of 2009 (Dated : 26-10-2009) Between: State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant/Petitioner A n d Kolam Jagmohan Reddy S/o Anji Reddy Shop No.4 to 6, Champapet X Road, Ranga Reddy District. …Respondent/Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1298 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, filed by State, is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.08.2007 in Calendar Case No.1030 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, whereunder and whereby, the respondent/accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with 2(ix)(c) and Section 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, `the Act’). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal, may be stated as follows: P.W.1, who is Food Inspector along with his Attender, inspected the shop of the accused on 25.7.2000 and suspecting that it was adulterated, he purchased 450 grams of cotton seed refined oil. He divided the sample into three equal parts, and after observing necessary procedure, one sample was forwarded for analysis to the Public Analyst, who after analysis, opined that the sample does not confirm to Belier’s test and Halphen’s test is negative and therefore, it was adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the competent authority, the complaint is lodged. 3. When the accused was examined as required under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he denied the accusation and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, two witnesses P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and 24 documents Exs.P.1 to P.24 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, upon consideration of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that PW-1 failed to follow Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and also there was abnormal delay in serving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, which deprived the accused to make a request to the concerned Magistrate to send the 2nd sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, and accordingly acquitted him. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the complainant proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with 2(ix) (c) and Section 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954?. 7. Learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PW.1 is very clear that he purchased the cotton seed refined oil from the shop of the accused and after analysis, the article of food was found to be adulterated and therefore, the complainant proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless the contrary is proved. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Normally this court, sitting in an appeal against the order of acquittal, would not ordinarily interfere with the judgment unless there exists substantial or compelling reasons. Some of them are: (i) Perverse finding is given; (ii) Findings are not based upon evidence; (iii) Inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration; (iv) Admissible evidence has been overlooked. 9. After taking the samples and after sealing them, one sample has to be sent to Public Analyst by post. The specimen impressions of the seal are to be sent to the Public Analyst separately by another registered post. There is no evidence on record to show that the sample sent by PW-1 is the self same sample analyzed by analyst. Rule 18 of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 reads as follows:- “ 18. Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent, in a sealed packet separately to the public analyst by any suitable means immediately but not later than the succeeding working day.” From the material available on record, it is clear that the said rule has been violated by Pw-1. 10. There was abnormal delay of one year eight months from the date of lifting the sample and serving notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. There cannot be any dispute that the report given by the Director of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. Though the accused has not made any such complaint, but at the same time, it would be a futile exercise to make such a request because of abnormal delay. At that point of time, the true value of the article of food may not be obtained. Some times, it may not be even fit for analysis. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 11. The appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment dated 7.8.2007 passed in C.C.No.1030 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J.) Dt. 26-10-2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1298 OF 2009 Date: 26.10.2009