The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D. Bhasker Reddy, representing Sri Anuganti Praneeth Counsel for the Respondent: Smt. S. Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISTON CASE No.1554 of 2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner- accused aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 21 07 2011 in Criminal Appeal No98 of 2010 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short 'the learned appellate Court'), confirming the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence daled 12 10.2010 in C.C.No.B38 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial (for short 'learned trial Court'). The offence alleged against the petitioner-accused are under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act')

02. Heard Sri D.Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri Anuganti Praneeth, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent. perused the record 03 ln brief, the case of the complainant is that he being a Food lnspector, inspected the premises of 2 !r-\ *""=_l Annamaya Aqua pure water prant, which berongs to the petitioner-accused on 24.04.2006 at about 11:00 AM. The petitioner-accused was selling the water for human consumption rn the said inspection he found that the petitioner-accused failed to obtain BIS Certification for manufacturing of mineral drinkrng water. Thereafter, the complainant obtained written consent from the Drrector, lpM, Public Health Labs, Food and (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, for launching prosecution against the petitioner_accused and filed complaint before the learned trial Court

04. The learned trial Court after conducting the trial convicted and sentenced the petitioner_accused for the alleged offence. Aggrieved the said Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, the petitioner-accused preferred Criminal Appeal before the learned appellate Court and the said appeal was dismissed confirming the Judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

05. Aggrieved by the said Judgment passed by the learned appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner-accused. 3 06 Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner-accused is nothing to do with the alleged offence The prosecution has not made out the ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act The complainant has no jurisdiction within the limits of Nlancherial Municipality. Except, PW1 no other witness was examined by the prosecution There is no element of food adulteration rn the present case. Hence, he prayed to set aside the Judgments of learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case 07 Learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State submitted that the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court have rightly considered the material on record and passed the impugned Judgments and there are no illegalities or irregularities in the said Judgments, for which no interference of this Court is needed and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case 08 Both the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court have considered the oral and documentary \ 4 evidence available on record and came to a concurrent conclusion that the offence under Section 16(1)(aXii) of the Act is made out against the petitioner-accused and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused for the said charge

09. As seen from the entire record, PW1- complainant-Food lnspector alone was examined before the learned trial Court wherein it was stated that he conducted panchanama marked under Ex.P5, in the presence of panch witness. During the course of cross-examination, it was admitted by PWl that the copy of the said panchanama was not supplied to the petitioner-accused. lt is also clear from the evidence of PW'l that one panch witness was present while conducting the said panchanama, and at the time of inspection there were three to four persons present.

10. On a careful perusal of the entire evidence of PW'l , there was no explanation forthcoming on whose information he had inspected the premises of the petitioner- accused. There is no seizure of samples by PWl lt is the case of PWI that he found 25 cans with 20 liters capacity with 5 mineral water in it. Then, there is no proper explanation forthcoming from PWl as to what prevented him from collecting the samples of the said mineral water.

11. Even though the entire proceedings were conducted in the presence panch witness, the said panch witness was not examined before the learned trial Court. So also, there is no proper explanation forthcoming from the prosecution as to why the panch witness was not examined. The evidence of an official witness alone may not be sufficient to prove a crime, in the absence of evidence of panch witness, particularly when the case is basing upon a panchanama, there will be a reasonable doubt about the trustworthiness of the official witness's testimony. While it is generally desirable for the prosecution to examine all material witnesses, including panch witnesses, the non-examination of a panch witness is always fatal to the prosecution case. 12 lt is not the case of the prosecution that the said water is a contaminated or adulterated. There is no evidence to show that the water do not meet the Standards of BIS There was no complaint from any person with regard to the standards of the water being sold by the petitioner_ I i 6 -r-'.. ---l accused, [Vloreover, PW1 did not disclose as on whose information he inspected the premises of the petitioner- accused. There is no reliable information to PW'l for conducting the inspection. That means, PWI independently conducted inspection in the premises of the petitioner- accused. When, an inspection was conducted independently by the complainant, the same shall be supported by the panch witness to prove the panchanama prepared connection with the said inspection

13. Be that as it may, ultimately, the discrepancy found by PW1 was that BIS Certification was not obtained by the petitioner-accused. The BIS Certification ts required for the manufacturing of the water. However, it is pertinent to observe here that the petitioner-accused is not manufacturin! the water but he was selling the said water.

14. ln view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court have failed to observe that the evidence of PWl was not supported by cogent evidence of any independent witness, which amount to gross irregularity on the part of the prosecution. ln that view of the matter, the concurrent findings 7 recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court are liable to be set aside.

15. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned Judgment dated 21 07 2011 in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2010 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, confirming the Judgment of Convictron and Sentence dated 12.10.2010 in C.C.No.B3B of 2006 passed by the learned principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. Consequenily, the petitioner-accused is acquitted for the offence under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the preventlon of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the petitioner_ I l accused As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall btand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. MANJULA JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad (with records, if any) principat Magistrate of th; First Ctass Ji'tr4ancneriat ? ]1 " r. tne supenntendent, District Jail, Adilabad. 4 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for, the state of rerangana I 9n" !! !o Sri Anuganti praneerh, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies at Hyderabad. [OUT] Kam/gh Ik- HIGH COURT DATED: 1 7 10412025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1554 ot 2011 cl 1HE S f..,l ( e 3, 29npii ZttS wr. * O5 * )'r,4I C trE'.) (r D O ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE "1codsb v- fit('"