IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1838 OF 2009 DATE: 5.12.2009 Between: The State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. ..... Petitioner AND Talasu Kameswara rao, Srikakulam District .....Respondent JUDGMNT : This Criminal Appeal by the State under Sections 378 (3) & (1) Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment dated 31st March 2006 passed in S.T.C.No. 92 of 2002, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa, where under and whereby, the sole accused was found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(iii) & 16 (1) (A) (II) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “Act”) and Rule 50 (1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short ‘Rules’) and accordingly acquitted the accused. 2. Brief facts of the case are that PW-1 visited the premises of the accused who is running the shop under the name and style M/s Sesireka Cashew Industries, College, Palasa, on 11.6.2001 and demanded him to produce the license of food articles of cashew nut and found that no licence was obtained. So he got issued a notice to the accused to take a licence under the Act and Rules thereunder. When the complainant sent a registered notice dated 27.7.2001 to the accused for obtaining prescribed licence, the accused refused to receive the notice and the same was returned with an endorsement of refusal. The Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration, Hyderabad, accorded written consent in R.C.No. 9170/F1/2001-3 dated 19.1.2002 for launching the prosecution against the accused. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(iii) and 16 (1) (a) (ii) of Act and Rule 50(1) of PFA Rules read with 20 of Rules. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, he denied the offences pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 and 2 and marked Exs P1 to P6. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused 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. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. The trial Court after consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that cashew nut comes under the category of fruit product, within the meaning of Section 2(d)(iv) of the Fruit Products Order 1955 and therefore, it is governed by fruit and it is exempted from obtaining licence under Section 7 of the Act and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, State preferred this appeal. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 9. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is not having required licence, as required under Rule 50 of the Rules. Rule 50 (1) shows that no person shall manufacture, sell, stock distribute or exhibit for sale any article of food, including prepared food or ready to serve food except under a licence. The proviso shows that the fruit products covered under the Fruit Products Order, 1955 shall be exempted from the above rule. Now it is to be seen whether the cashew nut is a fruit within the meaning of Section 2(d)(iv) of Fruit Products Order, 1955. The dehydrated fruits is a fruit within the meaning of fruit product under the said order. It is not in dispute that the cashew nut is a dehydrated fruit. Therefore, in view of proviso to Rule 50, no licence is required for manufacture, sale, stock or distribution of fruit products. Hence, the trial court after considering the evidence on record rightly acquitted the accused. I see no substantial reasons to interfere with the acquittal order passed by the trial court. 10. Accordingly, all the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself confirming the judgment dated 31st March 2006 passed in S.T.C.No. 92 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa. _________________ K.C. BHANU,J DATE: 05.12.2009. KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies