The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K- Uday Kumar, counsel representing Sri S. Surender Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER (- HON'BLI SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIiJ AS RAQ CRIMINAL No. 1248 of 2',ltL4 ORDER: This criminal appeal has been filed aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Spr cial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Adil: bad in C.C. No.338 of 2O1O (Old C.C. No.3S3 of : OlO), dated 24.06.2011, whereunder respondent Nr s.1 and, 2, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2, were acqr.l itted for the offences punishable under Sections 16(1- \)(i) r/w 7 (i) and 2(ia)(f) of the prevention of Food Adut eration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as .the Act,).

2. Heard Sri M.Vivekananda Rcdrl 7, learned Assistant public prosecutor and Sri K.Lr lay Kurnar, learned counsel, representing Sri S.Surer der Reddy, learned counsel appearing behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. The case of prosecution in brief s that on 24.09.2OO9 at about 4.OO p.M., the Food I rspector of Division-I (LW_1), Adilabad District alorLl ; with his 2 .\ office subordinate visited the prernises of M/s. Sr-rper Quafiff, Door No. t-StL/59/A/18, Satnala Road, Adilabad, for inspection. At that time A- 1 transacting the business and claimed himself as vendor and sales man of the said shop. Lw-1 disclosed his identigr to A-1, on enquiry A-1 stated that A-2 is the proprietor of said shop and at that tirne the proprietor was out of station that's why A-1 transacting the business. Lw-l informed A-1 the purpose of his visit and then sectrred the presence of Lw-2 by name Tarbaz Ahrned for which he accepted. Lw-l inspected the above premises in ttreir presence and found a stock of Maida along with other items Vanaspathi etc., approdmately of 30 Kgs in a plastic dmrn. On enquiry A-1 stated that it is Maida, kept to prepare bakery items and sale for hurnan consumption and stated that he do not have the purchase bill. The Food Inspector suspected the said Maida (infested) and with an intention to lift sample of the same for analysis purpose, purchased 15OO grams from the 3 said stock by paying Rs. 45/- and ob -ained cash receipt frorn A- 1 and then immediately issued and served Form-VI notice on A- 1 informing t rat the said purchased sample of Maida will be sent t r the Public Analyst, Hyderabad for analysis an I obtained acknowledgement. Further Lw-1 divide 1 the said purchased Maida into three equal parts, ,:ach sample was poured in three dry clean and er rpty plastic containers separately, fixed caps to r: rch sample container and sealed properly. A label bearing No. zv / ADB/ 3ra4 /2OO9 was pasted to eac:l L container. The each sample container was separate lg warped in a fairly thick brown paper, ends are n:atly folded inside and pasted with gurn. A paper slip signed and isstred by the Local (health) amthori y, Zone-V, Warangal, bearing code No. tr rd Sl.No. zv / ADB/3ta4/2OO9 was pasted to r:r tch sample container around from bottorn to top zr rd obtained the signature of A- 1 on each sample r ontainer in such a rnanner that ttre paper slip an: the brown 4 paper w.rapper both carry a part of signature. Lw_l further secured each sample container w.ith strong twine both above and across and affixed four seals to eactr sample container on distinct places covering the knots of tw"in i.e. 1 on top, 1 at the bottom and 2 on either side of the body of each sample container by using specimen impression seal. LW_1 drafted panchanama, read over ttre contents to A_1 and, LW_2 in Hindi and English and obtained their signatures, sent the samples for public Analyst and the public Analyst opined that the sample is insect infested and it is therefore, adulterated. Thus, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1-A)(i) of the prevention of Food Adr.rlteration Act, 1954 for violation of Section 7(i), 2(ial(f) of the prevention of Food Ad.ulteration Act, 1954. 4 On behalf of prosecution before the Court below, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.pl to E21 were marked. On. behalf of defence, no witnesses were 5 exarnined and no docurnents were markr:1. The trial Court after taking into consideration of t ee oral and documentary evidence on record and afte r hearing the parties, acquitted respondent Nos. 1 artl 2 for the offence punishable under Section 16(l-l )(i) r/w 7(i) and 2(ia)(f) of the Act.

5. Aggrieved by the above said judgrnr: rt the State filed the present Appeal.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecuto ' subrnitted that the Cor.rrt below without properly rppreciating the oral and docurnentary evidence on record acquitted respondent Nos.1 and 2, .hough the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court below ought to have co rsidered the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P1 to P.21.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearir g on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 subrnitted tha,t respondent Nos.l and 2 tlave not comrnitted any offe nce and the ingredients of Section 16(1-A)(i) r/w 7(11 I ad 2(ia)(f) of 6 the Act a.re not applicable and the Court below after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment and acquitted ttre respondent Nos. I and 2 by giving cogent findings. He further submitted that pW-1 frled the complaint after lapse of more than nine months from the date of alleged inspection. The prosecution has not proved Ex.pl4 Public Analyst Report by examining the concerned Analyst and PW-2 also not supported the prosecution case. There are no grounds to interfere with the irnpugned judgment passed by the Court below.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material aveilable on record, it revea-ls that basing upon the cornplaint lodged by pW-1, the present case was taken cognizance against the respondent Nos.l and 2 for the offence under Sections 16(l-A)(i) r/w Z (11 and 2(ia)(f) of the Act by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adilabad and numbered it as C.C. No.353 of 2O1O 7 and transferred to the Court of Spe< ial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Adilalt rd, where it was re-nllrnbered as C.C. No.338 of 2OlC

9. The record further reveals that ev<n according to the prosecution, the alleged ins; ection was conducted by the Food Inspector, Divisior -I, Adilabad District on 24.O9.2OO9. However, ttre co nplaint was lodged after lapse of more than ni re months, especially relying upon Ex.P. 14 Public Ar.r Llyst Report, dated 30.1O.2OO9. In the cross-exalninrtion, PW-2 admitted that white worms and black b,::tles can be separated from Mida powder at the tirne o putting the Mida powder for preparing food articles. Ihe specifrc case of respondents is that they are no: adr.rlterated t I Mida and they are using the same for pr:paration of bakery iterns and they are not selling .4ida in the bakery. The Court below after evaluating .he oral and documentary evidence on record, spe<: fically held that the prosecution has failed to prove the adulteration of food article/Mida flour <ept in the 8 shop of accused No.2. The record further reveals that PW-3, who is a panch witness, also turned hostile to the case of prosecution and the prosecution has not proved Ex.P14 Public Analyst Report by examining the concerned Analyst. Thus, the Court below has rightly acquitted the accused Nos. 1 and 2 by giving cogent findings. Hence, this Cor.rrt does not frnd any ground to interfere with the frndings given by the Court below. 1O. Accordingly, the crirninal appeal is dismissed. Pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- V. KAVITHA DEPUW REGISTRAR ,.(9- SECTION OFFICER To, records, if any) l The speciar Judiciar Magistrate of First crass, (Excise), Adirabad. (with 2 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at 3. One CC to Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] Kam/gh HIGH COURT DATED:21 10812025 t ORDER CRLA.No.1248 ot 2014 . "+'-:'::-: ,,' i:' ,.' , /6- ,.. I : 2 DEi itfi ii -lr \ DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL q 1r