IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.40 OF 2010 Between: The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Veda Kumar & another ..... Respondents/Accused The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.40 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is filed by the State against the judgment, dated 12.06.2006, in C.C.No.559 of 2002, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, whereunder and whereby the Accused No.1 was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, “the Act”) and accordingly acquitted him. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: P.W.1-Food Inspector, Division III, Warangal District, along with his attender, inspected the business premises of Accused No.2 i.e., M/s.Laxmi Powa and Oil Mill, situated at Door No.5-2-1, Main Road, Raghunathpalli, Warangal District, on 28.02.2001. At that time, Accused No.1 was present in the shop and transacting the business in the sale of oil. P.W.1 found four groundnut oil packets in a carton of one liter each with label Vijay Double Filtered groundnut oil, manufactured by the A.P. Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited, 9th Floor, Parishyam Bhavan, Hyderabad, which was kept for sale for human consumption. P.W.1, on suspicion that it was adulterated, purchased one packet of Vijay Double Filtered Groundnut oil and divided the same into three equal parts and made three samples. After following due procedure, one sample packet was sent to the Public Analyst on 01.03.2001 for analysis. The Public Analyst, after analysis, opined that the sample does not conform to the standards of Bellier’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 Health (Authority), Hyderabad, for consent. The Director of the State Food Health (Authority), Hyderabad, has given a written consent to launch the prosecution against the accused. Thereafter, the complaint was filed. 3. On 18.12.2004, the prosecution filed a report along with the Death Certificate that Accused No.2 died and therefore, the case against Accused No.2 was abated. 4. When a charge under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act was framed, read over and explained to Accused No.1, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing 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 in lodging the complaint and thereby depriving the valuable right of the Accused No.1 in making a request to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory and accordingly acquitted the Accused No.1. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 8. Heard the counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the judgment. 9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the Accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 10. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal though the Appellate Court has got full power to reappreciate the evidence available on record, but it will be 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 and 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 Accused No.1 was transacting the business in the shop of Accused No.2 when P.W.1 inspected the shop on 28.02.2001. It is also not seriously in dispute that P.W.1 purchased one packet of Vijay Double Filtered Groundnut oil, manufactured by the A.P. Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited, 9th Floor, Parishyam Bhavan, Hyderabad, and divided the same into three equal parts and made three samples. After following due procedure, one sample packet was sent to the Public Analyst on 01.03.2001 for analysis and the Public Analyst, after analysis, gave the opinion to the effect that the sample does not conform to the standards of Bellier’s Test (Turbidity temperature – Acetic Acid Method) and therefore, it was adulterated. 12. Admittedly, there was a delay of one year eight months in lodging the complaint. No explanation was forthcoming for the abnormal delay. Under Section 13 (2) of the Act, the Accused No.1 was having a right to make a request to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, which 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.” 13. It is well settled that the report of the Central Food Laboratory supercedes the report of the Public Analyst. No doubt, the Accused No.1 has not availed such right, but at the same time, no useful purpose would be served in making such a request because there is no evidence to show that the article of food was kept in proper atmosphere and at a proper place so that no chemical changes would take place while keeping the sample. The Bellier’s Test (Turbidity Temperature – Acetic Acid Method) is with reference to the temperature. Therefore, the article of food may not be fit for analysis after lapse of one year eight months. Due to chemical changes, the true values would not be ascertained by the Central Food Laboratory. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the Accused No.1. 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. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 12.06.2006, in C.C.No.559 of 2002, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 18th January, 2010 KL