THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.686 of 2004 ORDER: 1 The Petitioner was tried by the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in C.C.No.277 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 7(i) 2 (ia) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.26 on its behalf. The learned Magistrate, having analysed the said evidence let in by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The said judgment dated 08.04.2002 was challenged before the learned learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur by way of Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2002 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the said Criminal Appeal, confirmed the said sentence as imposed by the trial court by his judgment dated 07.04.2004. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred the present revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 13.11.1997 at 5-15 p.m. P.W.1 along with his staff P.W.3 visited the shop by name Thatikonda Venkateswarlu Kirana Shop, Pedaravuru village, of which the petitioner is the proprietor. At that time the petitioner was managing the business in the shop. P.W.1 found two tins containing groundnut oil for sale to public for human consumption. Suspecting that the said groundnut oil is adulterated, P.W.1 intended to take sample of the groundnut oil. By serving a notice in Form VI on the first petitioner for taking sample of groundnut oil for analysis and purchased 450 gms of groundnut oil and paid Rs.16/- towards cost of that oil. P.W.1 divided the sample into three equal parts and poured each part in clean, dry and empty bottles and pasted label to each sample bottle, sealed the ends and then each sample bottle was wrapped in thick brown paper separately folded neatly and pasted the ends with gum. A paper slip issued and signed by the Director, IP.M. and local (Health) Authority A.P. Hyderabad was pasted to each sample bottle as per the procedure and sealed four sides and fastened with twice thread. P.W.1 drafted panchanama the contents of which were read over and explained to the petitioner in Telugu and obtained their signatures on the same. On 15.11.1997 one part of the sample with seals intact along with memorandum in From VII was sent in sealed packet to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority. A separate sealed cover with memorandum in Form VII was sent separately to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory Hyderabad and the remaining two parts of the sample with seals intact along with memorandum in Form VII in duplicate were sent to the Director ad Local (Health) Authority. The Public Analyst after analysis of the sample, opined that the sample does not confirm to Bellier’s test and contain castor oil and therefore adulterated. The Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Laboratories and Food (Health) Administration, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad accorded written consent and directed P.W.1 to launch prosecution against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 7 (i) 2 (ia) (a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Accordingly P.W.1 filed the present complaint against the petitioners for the said offence. 3 Heard both sides. 4 Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perusing the judgments of the courts below, this court is also of the view that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence for which he was tried and as such no interference is called for. 5 However, as the alleged offence took place on 13.11.1997 i.e. about 14 years back and as the petitioner were in jail for some period, this court takes a lenient view and reduces the said sentence of one year to that of the period which the petitioner already undergone. 6 Excepting the above modification, in all other aspects, this revision is dismissed. --------------- 03.02.2011 Kvsn