Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2010 · The High Court · 2025

Order

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 4Ol of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/ accused, chzrllenging the judgment, dated 22.1 1.2011, passed in Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2010 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimna5lar, whereby, tfre sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine ol Rs.1,000/-, IN default, to s rffer simple imprisonment for a period three months, imposec by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was conltrmed.

2. Heard Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.Pillix Law Firm appearing for the petitioner/ accu sed, Mr.tr.Ganesh, leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/ State ancl pemsed the record

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.O4.2OO3, PW.I /Food Inspector visited Gayathri Kirana Store, situated at 2 H.No.7-2611llB, Indira Gandhi Main Road, Lingannapet Village, Gambhiraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District. The petitioner/accused was transacting business at that time. On enquiry, the petitioner/accused disclosed that he is the proprietor of the said shop and he is dealing with selling of all varieties of kirana items to the public for human consumption. PW. I disclosed his identity, secured the presence of PW.2/Binde Rajaram Goud to act as mediator for inspection and sampling work, inspected the shop in the presence of PW..2 and noticed l0 Kgs of blackgram dhal stocked in an open plastic bag. The petitioner/accused disclosed that the said biackgram dhal was kept in the shop premises for sale to public for human consumption and failed to furnish the purchase particulars of blackgram dhal. Then, PW.1 examined blackgram dhal and did not find any.insect or infestation and suspecting as adulterated for having excess weevilled grains, purchased 15OO grams of blackgram dhal for the purpose of sending it for analysis and paid its cost of Rs.36/- to the petitioner/ accused and obtained cash receipt from him and served Form VI notice on the petitioner/ accused informing that the purchased sample will be sent to public analyst for 3 analysis and obtained acknowledgement on the olfice copy of Form VI notice which was attested by PW.2. PW.1 divided the purchased l5OO grams of blackgram dhal into three equal parts and each part was poured into three clean, dry and empty piastic tins and closed the mouths of tins with caps tightly and tied with thread and sealed. Then, I'ebel bearing Code No.ZV /KNR|1064212003 was pasted on each sample tin and again, each sample container separately w-apped in a thick brown paper and the ends were neatly folderd inside and pasted with gum. Then a paper slip bearing bearing Code No.ZVl KNR/ 10642 / 2OO3 was pasted to each sample and finally, each sample tin was separately tied with ,.trong thread both above and across and put wax seals. PW.l drafted a mediator report for the entire procedure of lifting of sample at the place of inspection in the presenoe of the petitioner/accused and PW.2 and the same was read over and explained and obtained their attestation on thc report. On 2a.O8.2OO3, one part of the sample along with a ,:oPY of Form VII having specimen impression seal of PW. 1 was s;ent to Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyde rabad, under registerd --parcel vide postal receipt No.1277, dated k 4

28.O8.2OO3. Two other parts of sample along w.ith two copies of Form VII having specimen impression seal of PW. 1 was sent to Local (Health) Authority, Warangal. The sample sent to the public analyst has been analyzed and the Pubiic Analyst issued report in Form III, vide Analyst Report No.664 /2OO3 along with covering letter addressed to Local (Health) Authority, Warangal, and the same has been forwarded to the office of PW. 1 . The Public Analyst opined that the sample does not conhrms to the standards of foreign matter and minerai matter and as such, it is adulterated. A detailed report was submitted to the State Food (Health) Authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 2o(ll of PFA Act read with G.O.Ms.No.62, M & H, dated 30.01.1985, and in the pubiic interest, accorded written consent for institution of prosecution for the offence committed by the petitioner/accused under PFA Act and Rules, for sale of adulterated blackgram dhal.

4. After hling of charge-sheet, the case was taken on frle for the offence punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of PFA Act, against the petitioner/accused. To prove the guilt of the petitioner/ accused, the prosecution examined 5 P.Ws.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.Pl to P19. On behalf of the accused, no evidence, either oral or documentaly, has been adduced.

5. The trial Court, after analysing the entire evidence on record, found the petitioner/ accused guilty of the offence under Sections 16(1)(a[i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of PFA Act ar:,d sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/ accused preferred the subject Criminal Appeal No.144 of 20 L0 before the Court below. The Court below, after re-appreciating the entire material available on record, dismissed the appeal by conhrming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused of the offence under Sections 16(1)(a)(i),7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of PFA Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred this Criminal Revision Case'

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/ accused would submit that the Court below erred in properly appreciating the evidence on record. PW.2, an independent witness, turned hostile and the evidence of PW. 1, who is intereste d witnesses, would not have been reiied upon by the C ourt below. Further, there are material omissions and contradictions in the 6 evidence of prosecution witnesses and on this sole ground, the pe[itioner/accused ought to have been acquitted. The Court below ought to have noted that it is very much within the knowledge of PW. 1 / Food Inspector that the blackgram dhal cannot be adulterated by a petty vendor like the petitioner/ accused. Service of notice under Section l3(2) of PFA Act is mandatory, but in the instant case, no such notice was served on the petitioner/ accused. Further, there was clear violation ol the mandatory stipulation contained in Section 11(4) of the Act regarding production of the remaining sample before the Court. There was inordinate delay in launching prosecution against the petitioner/accused, which deprived his valuable right under the PFA Act to seek permission to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for second analysis. Further, the prosecution failed to show as to how the blackgram dhal is adulterated and it is harmful to human consumption, as in the report of the analyst, it is not at all mentioned that it is injurious to health. Further, the very collection of sample was not in accordance with the relevant Rules and drawing of sample itself was wrong. The action against the petitioner/accused stands vitiated on account of 7 inordinate and deliberate delay in launching prosectttion against him, thereby depriving his valuable rights conferred under the PFA Act. The Courts below erred in convicting him of the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of PFA Act. It is a ht case to extend benefit of doubt to the petitio ner/ accused and acquit him of the oflence under Sections I6(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of PFA Act and ultimately prayed to allou' the Criminal Revision Case as prayed for. He further placed reliance on the case laws of this Court in M/s.Ruchl Infrastnrcture Ltd., Mumba\ a, The Food Inspector, Diuislon'Il.. Nalgonda Dlstt'lct1 and Food Inspector, Kakinada, E.G,District rep. bg the Pubtic Prosecutor v. Gunturu Venkateswara Rao and anotheP

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the judgment impugned in :his Criminal Revision Case and contended that there are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned judgment. Taking; this Court through the contents of the complaint lodged by I)W. 1 and the evidence of PW. 1, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted 12007 scc online AP 1071 'z2008 scc online AP 1048 \r$ B that merely because of delay in launching prosecution, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner/ accused. There are no procedural irregularities in launching prosecution against th" petitioner/ accused . The evidence placed on record clinchingly proves the guilt of the petitioner/ accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences alleged against him. There are no circumstances to interfere with the judgment impugrred in this Criminal Revision Case and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Cases. a. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for determination in this Criminal Revision Case is as follows: ultrlhether the impugned judgment, dated 22,O7.2O77, passed in Criminal Appeal No.744 of 2O1O bg the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnaga4 is legallg sustainable?" PCIINT:- 9. Having given thoughtfu! consideration to the above rival submissions and meticulously gone through entire material on record. This Court is aware of the settled legal position that this Court, in exercise of its Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 &,401 of Cr.P.C., cannot interfere with the concurrent hndings o{-fqt recorded by the Courts below, unless they are 9 perverse or arrived at iglnoring material evidence. Further, the Revisional pou,er of this Court under Sections 391' and 401 of Cr.P.C., is not to be equated with that of an appeal. But however, when the decision of the Court below is perverse or untenable in law or grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or based on no material or where the material facts are wholIy ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, this Court can interfere with the said decision in exercise of its Revisional jurisdiction. Section 401 of Ci.P.C. enables the High Court to exercise all powers of appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence o' supervision, as a part of Revisional power. Section 397 of C-.P.C. confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himselI as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any linding sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court. Thus, a duty rests on the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of .justice.

10. In the above context in regard to the scope :.nd limitation. 10 imposed on Revisional court, I deem it proper to evaluate the evidence on record, in order to hnd out as to whether the prosecution has established that the petitioner/ accused is guilty of the offence under Sections 16(l)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of PFA Act, and if not, whether the petitioner/ accused is entitled for acquittal at the hands of Revisional court.

11. In the instant case, the Courts below convicted the petitioner/accused of the offences Sections t6(t)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of PFA Act. The relevant events and dates, which are crucial for determining the present lis, are as under: Date of lifting the samPles Date of sending the samPles the Analyst Date on which the Public Analyst sent his re ort Date of filing of the com laint Date of issuance of notice Section I 3(2) ofthe Act

27.Oa.2003

28.Oa.2003

19.09.2003

04.t2.2003 2a.to.2004 12, Here, it is apt to extract Section 11 (a) of the Act, which reads as follows:

11. Procedure to be followed by food inspectors - ( 1) )ooa{ 11 (2) )ooo( (3):ooo< (4) An article of food seized under sub-section (4) ( l section 10, unless destroyed under subsection (4A) of that section, and any adulterant seized under sub-section (6) of that section shall be produced before a magistrate as soon as possible and in any case not later than seven days a,fter the receipt o[ the report of the public analyst. Provided that if arr application is made to the magLstrate in this behalf by t1e person from whom aly article ol food has been seized, the magistrate shall by order in wntinS,lirect the food inspector to produce such article before him u'ithin such time as may be specified in the order. (5) )ooo< (6) >ooo<

13. A plain reading of the above extracted sub r';ection (4) of Section I 1 of the Act makes it clear that an a rticle of food seized under Sub-section 4 of Section 10 and alty adulterant seized under Sub-section (6) of Section 10 sha1l be produced before a Magistrate as soon as possible, and in ztny case, not later than seven days after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst. In the instant case, the seized sample, admitted$, was not produced before the Court within seven days as required under Sub-section 4 of Section 11 of the Act. Thus, there is clear violation of the mandatory stipulation contained under Section 11(a) of the Act regarding production of the sample before the Court. There is inordir: ate delay in producing the sample before the Court from the date ol lifting the sample and also from the date of receipt :f the Public 12 Analyst Report would certainly C USC prejudice to the petitioner/accused, which is detrimental to his defence. There is absolutely no explanation offered by the prosecution for the abnormal deiay in production of the sample before the Court The Court below, while discussing the said aspect, held that since the petitioner/ accused had not availed remedy under Section 13(21 of PF Act tc send the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, it cannot be held that the petitioner/accused suffered any prejudice on account of delay in laying the prosecution. The said observation, in my view, is erroneous because merely on the ground that the petitioner/accused did not choose to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory after receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, he cannot be deprived of his valuable right conferred upon him/her under a statute because of the delay in securing sanction of prosecution against a person. L4. Further, Section 13(2i of the Act reads as foilows: On receipt of t.I.e report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Hea-lth) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken ald the person, if any, whose name, ad&ess and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such mzrnner as may be prescribeci, a copy of the report of the result of the 13 analysis to such person or persons, as the case rnay be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to tlle court within a period of ten days from the date of recerpt of the copy of thc report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.

15. In the instant case, the Public Analyst Report'vas obtained on 19.09.2003 and the complaint was hlcC only 28.1O.2OO4, i.e., after one month ten days. 'lhere is no explanation for lodging the subject complaint belatedly after about one month ten days, when the Public Analyst Report was very much available with the complairrant as on

19.O9.2003. Though the Public Analyst submitted his report on

19.09.2003, the Prosecution could not file the complaint till

27.1O.2OO4. Alter filing of complaint, notice under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act was issued to the petitioner,/accused on

28. 10.2005, which is evident from the material placed on record Thus, there was delay of about one month ten days in affording opportunity to the petitioner/ accused for getting the sample analyzed through the Central Food Laboratory. Therefore, it can unhesitatingly be held that the petitioner/ accrrsed had lost their valuable opportunity of getting the sample ar,alyzed through Central Food Laboratory. The inordinate delay on the 74 part of the prosecution is not attributable to the petitioner/accused and, therefore, the consequences thereof cannot work adversely to the interest of the petitioner/ accused. As the valuable right of the petitioner/accused for reanalysis provided under the PFA Act appea-rs to have been violated, his prosecution, if allowed to continue, would be a lame prosecution. No convincing reason is given as to why the complaint could not be lodged for such a long period.

16. A meticulous examination of the entire material placed on record reveals that the statutcry rights under Sections 11(4) and 13(21 of the Act have been virtually denied to the petitioner/ accused, owing the fault on the part of the prosecution. The said statutory rights are valuable and rndefeasible. They cannot be taken away in any circumstance. By iaunching the prosecution aJter an unexplained delay of about nine months from the date of receipt of report of the Public Analyst, ttre rights of the petitioner/accused have been smothered in this case. Therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioner/ accused cannot be sustained in the eye of law, it being violative of his indefeasible rights under Sections 11(4) and 13(2) of the Act. By deprivation of these rights, the 15 petitioner/accused has been denied an opportunity to prove his defence and hence, the prosecution was only one siced, which is against the well settled principles of Criminal Jurisprudence. Further, there are several material omir;sions and contradictions in the evidence of PW. l, which goes to the root of the matter. Further, S rightly contended by the leamed counsel for the petitioner/ accused, though sale o'adulterated article/ food is an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of PF Act, adulteration is not a manual process, but it is a mechanised process which cannot be undertaken by a petty veedor iike the petitioner/accused, that too for a small quantity of iO Kgs found by PW. 1 in his shop. The report of the Analyst must state as to whether the article of food, i.e., blackgram dhal analysed by him is injurious to the health, which is patently al)sent in this case. Viewed thus, the impugned judgment of the Court below the extent of convicting and sent:ncing the petitioner/ accused of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of PFA Act is improper, manifestly illegal which resulted in miscarriage of justice, entitling the petitioner/ accused for acquittal of the said offence by exercising revisione.l jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. 16 L7. For these reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed' The conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 16(l)(a)(i)' 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, vide judgment, dated 22.07.2011, passed in Criminal Appeal No'144 of 2O1O is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offence under Section Sections 16(t)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of PFA Act. The bail bonds of the petitioner/accused shall stand discharged and the fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him. 1a. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD OEPUTV REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 Z 3 4 The Court of Principal Sessions Judge' Karimnagar The Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Siricilla' c uto r High Court for the State of +ffi One CC to PILLIX LAW FIRM Advocate [OPUC] "",:;T:l?.",H **J ?8t?iose

5. Two CD CoPies N. Pcsd/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 :) o o t ORDER CRLRC.No.1540 ot 2011 1 irE S l-a 1O o^ ( 5 JUN il6 ? C) ,/ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISIONCASE ,i ba ? 16