IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.166 of 2010 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND Mandava Prasad, S/o. Krishna Murthy ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.166 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, "Cr.P.C.") is filed by the State against the Judgment, dated 27.08.2007, in C.C.No.473 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira, whereunder and whereby, the respondent/sole accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 7(i) (ii) read with 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act"). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: On 18.08.2003, the Food Inspector – PW.1 inspected the premises of the accused and found 10 Kgs., of curd in an open steel bowl, meant for sale for human consumption. PW.1 suspected that it was adulterated and purchased 600 grams of curd in the presence of mediators and divided it into three parts as prescribed in the Act and Rules and sent one sample to the Analyst. The Analyst after analysis opined that the article of food is deficit in milk fat and solid fat by 16% and 13%, respectively and therefore, it is adulterated. Thereafter, after obtaining written consent from the competent authority, complaint was lodged against the accused. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. of the offence under Sections 7 (i) (ii) read with 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-15. 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 and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was a delay of nearly 1 ½ year in serving the notice as required under Section 13 (2) of the Act and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the offence under Sections 7 (i) (ii) read with 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is clear that he purchased 600 grams of curd and divided the same into three parts, and that after following the due procedure as per the Act, one sample was sent to the Analyst for analysis, and the Analyst, after analysis, vide Ex.P-9 - Analyst report, opined that the sample was adulterated and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. 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. 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 contrary to law, 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. 10. The evidence of PW.1 would go to show that he purchased 600 grams of curd and divided the same into three parts. After following the due procedure, one sample was sent to the Analyst for analysis. The Analyst, after analysis, vide Ex.P-9 - Analyst report, opined that the sample was deficit of milk fat and solid fat by 16% and 13% respectively, and therefore adulterated. The notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued to the accused on 10.12.2004, whereas the sample was lifted on 18.08.2003. Nearly, there was a delay of about one year and four months in serving of notice on the accused from the date of lifting the sample of food. However accused had not made any request to send second sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for the purpose of analysis. No useful purpose would be served in making such request. The report that may be given by the Central Food Laboratory supercedes the report of Public Analyst. Though the accused has not made any application to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, no useful purpose would be served even if such a request is made after a lapse of about one year four months after lifting the article of food as the article of food may not be fit for analysis and the true values would not come. Therefore, the accused is deprived of his valuable right under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and the said order needs no interference of this Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment, dated 27.08.2007, made in C.C.No.473 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madhira. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J 04.02.2010 MD