THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.877 of 2007 Date: 15.10.2014 Between:
Ganjishetty Srinivas . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.877 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against orders dated 04-07-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.128/1997 whereunder judgment dated 23-08-1997 in C.C.No.308/1994 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
Food Inspector, Division-II, Medak District visited M/s. Balaji Kirana Marchant Shop situated on main Road of Kuknoorpalli on 15- 12-1992 and found the revision petitioner was managing the business in the shop. Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity, inspected the Kirana Shop in the presence of two witnesses and found 40 Kgs of Bengal Gram Dall in a bag along with other food articles and the Food Inspector suspecting that there is adulteration in Bengal Gram Dall, purchased 750 grams of Bengal Gram Dall from the accused from out of the stock available in the shop in the presence of mediators Haribabu and Badruddin and paid value of 750 grams and served Form-VI-notice on the accused showing his intention to send the purchased Bengal Gram Dall for analysis. Thereafter, the Food Inspector divided the purchased Bengal Gram Dall into three equal parts and separately packed them as per rules and prepared a Panchanama. One of the sample was sent to Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad and the analyst, after analysis, opined that the sample contained Kesari Dall, which is injurious to health and thereby, it is adulterated. Thereafter, the Food Inspector, after obtaining necessary permission and after issuing notice contemplated under Section 13 (2), filed the complaint. On these allegations, four witnesses are examined and 39 documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and on behalf of accused, one witness is examined and one document is marked. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 16 (1-A) (i), 7 (v), 2 (ia) & (h) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and 44-A of Food Adulteration Rules and sentenced him to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session and I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, by judgment, dated 23-08-1997, reversed the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet and the conviction was set aside. On that, prosecution preferred Crl.A.No.274/2004 before this Court and this Court by an order dated 21-03-2007 reversed the judgment of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and remanded back the appeal for a fresh disposal and on that, I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, after reappraisal of the evidence and considering the observations of this Court in the remand order, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence through order dated 04-07-2007. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that trial Court and appellate Court failed to see that there is a long delay of two years in launching prosecution and that the accused lost his valuable right under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) to get the sample analyzed from Central Food Laboratory. It is further contended that both the Courts placed reliance on the highly interested testimonies of P.Ws.1 & 2 though the independent mediator examined as P.W.4 has not supported the prosecution case. It is further contended that there is any amount of doubt as to the lifting of the sample and sending it for analysis and the benefit of doubt was not extended to the revision petitioner. It is further contended that both trial Court and appellate Court have not given importance to the evidence of D.W.1 and document Ex.D1 and simply carried away with the evidence of prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the Courts have rightly appreciated evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings. He further submitted that the objections that were raised before the appellate Court are again reiterated here and the learned appellate Judge negatived all the contentions of the revision petitioner by giving cogent and convincing reasons and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the appellate Court.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, P.W.1 visited the shop of revision petitioner on 15-12-1992 and on suspecting Bengal Gram Dall kept for sale in the shop, he purchased it and divided into three samples in the presence of mediators and sent for analysis. According to prosecution, Public Analyst, after analysis, found that the sample is injurious to health and it is adulterated. Food Inspector who is examined as P.W.1, deposed as to the averments of the complaint and the procedure that he followed for lifting the sample. P.W.2 is the successor of P.W.1 who received sanction proceedings and initiated prosecution by filing complaint before the Court having jurisdiction to try the case. P.W.3 is one of the mediators and also attender of P.W.1 who attested Ex.P4-panchanama. P.W.4 is an independent mediator who signed on Ex.P4-Panchanama.
7. The main argument of the Advocate for revision petitioner is that P.Ws.1 to 3 are highly interested witnesses and their testimonies are not supported and corroborated by any independent witness and the sole independent witness examined as P.W.4 has not supported the prosecution c a s e . No doubt, P.W.4 has not supported the prosecution case, but the fact remains that Ex.P4-panchanama bears his signature. Simply because, P.W.4 has not supported the prosecution case, the contents of Ex.P4 cannot be discarded, without there being any material to show that this Ex.P4 was not prepared in the manner deposed by P.Ws.1 & 3. Here except putting suggestions, nothing was placed before the trial Court to support the defence version. On defence side, one witness is examined. He deposed that accused is not running any Kirana Shop in Kuknoorpalli Village and through him, a certificate issued by Sarpanch is marked as Ex.D1. In the cross examination, he admitted that he has not obtained this Ex.D1 from the Grampanchyat, but it was given to him by accused. As seen from the cross-examination of P.W.1, nowhere it is contended that accused is not running any Kirana Shop. For the first time, while examining defence witness, this plea is raised but the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.D1 are not at all convincing and this version cannot be accepted in view of the cogent and convincing evidence of P.Ws.1 & 3. Further, as seen from the documents Exs.P1, P2 & P31, it is clear that accused acknowledged these documents in the capacity of owner of the shop. Particularly, Ex.P1 which is a receipt for the money paid for purchase of the 750 grams of Bengal Gram Dall reveals that the accused, having received the cost of 750 grams of Bengal Gram Dall, passed this Ex.P1 receipt. So the objection that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not considered the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.D1 document is not at all tenable.
8. The other objection raised on behalf of revision petitioner is that there is a long delay of two years in launching prosecution and that the revision petitioner lost his valuable right of sending the second sample to Central Food Laboratory, but as seen from the material, this objection was raised before the appellate Court and the learned appellate Judge negatived this objection in view of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Handi Instant Foods, Chennai vs. State of A.P., rep by its Food Inspector, Chittoor, wherein it is held that the accused is not entitled for quash of proceedings without showing that prejudice has been caused on account of delay caused in filing the complaint and serving the copy of the report of Public Analyst under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Here the revision petitioner has not produced any material to show that prejudice was caused to him on account of delay in filing the complaint before the Court concerned. As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor all these objections were dealt in detail by the appellate Court with reference to case law on the subject and there is no wrong appreciation of either facts or law. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that both the trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and that there are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the Courts below. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that both the Courts have considered all the aspects and rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings and the revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
9. For these reasons, revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the conviction and sentence.
10. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence, if any.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:15.10.2014 mrb