THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1180 of 2013 23-01-2014 BETWEEN:
State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, …..Appellant AND Tattapalli Sreesailam …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1180 of 2013 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 31.05.2011 passed in C.C. No.61 of 2003 by the Hon’ble I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That the Food Inspector, who is examined as P.W.1, lifted the samples from the accused/respondent herein and the same is sent for chemical examination to ascertain whether any adulteration is found. After obtaining the certificate from the competent authority and also after obtaining permission, a case is filed against the respondent/accused to prosecute him for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.29(a). 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/respondent mainly on the following grounds (paragraph 16 of the Judgment).
In the present case also, the contention of the accused is that the shelf life of oil is for 4 months that is not denied or disputed by the prosecution. Hence, the shelf life of the sample is taken as six months, then the Analyst report received by the P.W.1 on 08.02.2002 and notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was sent to the accused on 27.01.2003 i.e., more than 11 months after the Analyst gave his report. Hence, the shelf life of the sample is only for six months and if the accused utilized his opportunity under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by sending the second part of the sample for analysis to the Central Lab, even though no useful purpose would be served as the shelf life of the sample is for six months only, which cause prejudice to the accused by the delay in filing a complaint by the prosecution against the accused.
Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.
On perusing the entire evidence and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that if there is a violation of the provisions under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the accused is entitled for acquittal, as it is a valuable right accrued to the accused. This Court is of the view that the trial Court has considered the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given above while acquitting the accused is also in accordance with law. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court. The criminal appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 23.01.2014 pln