THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1149 of 2014 28-04-2014 BETWEEN:
Food Inspector, Pathapatnam, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, …..Appellant AND Sasanapuri Dharma Rao And others.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1149 of 2014 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 09.12.2011 passed in C.C.No.161 of 2011 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathapatnam, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) T(i) and 2(ia)(b)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That on 25.06.2001 at about 2.00 pm, P.W.1, Food Inspector, along with his attender inspected the Kirana shop of A.1 and found Mahan Ready Mix Instant Milk Power sealed packets, and suspecting adulteration, purchased six packets on payment of Rs.45/- for sampling purpose and received the cash receipt for the same. Thereafter, P.W.1 served Form VI notice intimating his intention to send the same to the Public Analyst for analysis and obtained an acknowledgement for the same. Then the Food Inspector divided the same into three equal parts and packed the same and one such sample was sent to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad, and that the Public Analyst opined that the sample does not conform to the Milk fat content of skimmed milk powder and is, therefore, adulterated. On receipt of the Analysis Report, Food Inspector, P.W.1, launched prosecution against the accused for selling adulterated food to the public for human consumption. Hence, the complaint was registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) T(i) and 2(ia)(b)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (the Rules, for brevity).
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3, and marked Exs.P.1 to P.27. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the following grounds.
(a) P.W.2, who is said to be the mediator, did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
(b) As per Article 32 of Rule 22 of the Rules, the minimum quantity of sample to be collected for the purpose of sample is 250 grams in case of “milk powder” or “skimmed milk”. In the present case, quantity of sample sent to the Public Analyst is only 100 grams, which is a clear violation of Rule 22 of the Rules.
(c) P.W.1 lifted the sample on 25.06.2001 and he received Ex.P.14, Public Analyst Report on 14.08.2001 and received Ex.P.16, sanction order, on 20.05.2002 and the complaint is filed on 18.06.2003 and issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 30.06.2003. Hence, there is an inordinate of two years in filing the complaint after receipt of Ex.P.14, Analysis Report, and there is a delay of one year after obtaining prosecution orders. Thereby, the accused has lost his valuable opportunity of sending second part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory as P.W.1 served notice under Section 13(2) of the Act with an inordinate delay, which certainly caused prejudice to the accused.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the material available on record.
Considering the findings recorded by the trial Court, the evidence adduced on record and since the prosecution fails to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused/respondents herein for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) T(i) and 2(ia)(b)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with law and it does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 28.04.2014 pln