The High Court · 2025

Order

This Crimina-l Revision Case, under Sections 392 and 4OI of Cr.P.C., is hled by the petitioner/ accused, :hallenging the judgment, dated 15.12.2011, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1l of 2OO9 by the II Additiona.l District Judge, Rangar,:ddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby, the sentence of simple imprirsonment for six months and a-1so to pay a fine of Rs.5,O00/-, in d,:fault, to suffer

simple imprisonment for a period one month, it.;nposed by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was co.efirmed. 2 Heard Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.Pillix Law appeanng for petitioner/accused, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/ State and perused the record 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.O2.2OO3, at about 11.40 A.M. PW. 1/Food Inspector along urith his Office 2 .1 Attender, namely, K.Narsingh Rao visited M/s.Mahaveer Rice Depot, Dr.No.2/ l43l l, near Lakshmi Kalamandir Theatre, Alwal, Rangareddy 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 food articles to the public for human consumption. PW. 1 disclosed his identity, secured the presence of PW .2 /Kanti La1 Jain to act as mediator for inspection and sampling work, inspected the shop in the presence of PW.2 and noticed 5 Kgs of jaggery stocked in card box without any lable. The petitioner/accused disclosed that the said jaggery was kept in the shop premises for sale to public for human consumption and tailed to furnish the purchase particulars of jaggery. Then, PW. 1 examined jaggery and suspecting as adulterated, purchased 750 grams of jaggery for the purpose of sending it for analysis and paid its cost of Rs.12/- 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 analysis and obtained acknowledgement on the 3 office copy of Form VI notice which was attested by PW.2 PW. 1 divided the purchased 750 grams of ja11gery into three equal parts and each part was placed into three clean, dry and empty plastic bottles and added 1.0 m[ of 4O"h formil dehyde to each sample and closed the mouths of bottles rvith caps tightly and tied with thread and sealed. PW. i drafted a mediator report for the entire procedure of lifting of sampl,: at the place of inspection in the presence of the petitioner/ accused and PW.2 and the same was read over and explained ald obtained their attestation on the report. On 28.O2.2OO3, one part of the sample along with a copy of Form VII having specimen impression seal of PW. 1 was sent to Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad, under initnration to Loca1 (Health) Authority, Rangareddy District. The sarnple sent to the public analyst has been analyzed and the Public Analyst issued report in Form III, vide Analyst Report dated 26.03.2003 along with covering letter addressed to Local (Health) Authority, Rangareddy District, and the same has been forwarded to the office of PW.1 on 07.O4.2OO3. The Public Analyst :pined that the sample does not confirm to the standards of sulpher dioxide and 4 as such, it is adulterated. A detailed report was submitted to the State Food (Health) Authoriry in exercise of powers conferred under Section 20(1) of PFA Act read with G.O.Ms.No.62, M & H, dated 30'01'1985, and in the public 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 filing of charge-sheet, the case was taken on file for theoffencepunishableunderSections2(ia)(m)and7(i)ofPFA Act, against the petitioner/ accused To prove the guilt of the petitioner/accused, the prosecution examined P'Ws'1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P l to P23 On behalf of the accused' no evidence, either oral or documentary, has been adduced'

5. The trial Court, after analysing the entire evidence on record, found the petitioner/ accused guilty of the offence under Sections 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) of PFA Act and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/ accused preferred the subject Criminal Appeal No' 1 1 of 2OO9 before the Courtbelow.TheCourtbelow,afterre-appreciatingtheentire 5 material available on record, dismissed t he appeal by confrrming the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/ accused of the offence under Sectio ns 2 (ia)(m) and 7(i) of PFA Act. Aggrieved by the same, the pet itioner/ accused preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitionerT accused would submit that the Court below erred in properly appreciating the evidence on record. PW.2, an independent 'ritness, turned hostile and the evidence of PW.1, who is interested witnesses, would not have been relied upon by the Court below. Further, there are material omissions and contrzidictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and on this sole ground, the petitioner/accused ought to have been acquitted. The Court below ought to have noted that it is very mr-tch within the knowledge of PW. l/Food Inspector that the jiggery cannot be adulterated by a petty vendor like the petitioner/ accused. Service of notice under Section l3(2) of PFA Ac1 is mandatory, but in the instant case, no such notice was served on the petitioner/accused. Further, there was clear violation of the mandatory stipulation contained in Section 1 1 (a) of the Act 6 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 jaggery 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 inordinate and deliberate delay in launching prosecution against him, thereby depriving his valuable rights conferred under the PFA Act. The Courts below erred in convicting him of the offences under Sections 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) of PFA Act, It is a lit case to extend benefit of doubt to the petitioner/accused and acquit him of the offence under Sections 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) of PFA Act and ultimately prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Case as prayed for. He further placed reliance on the case laws of this Court in M/s.Ruchi InJrastructure 7 Ltd., Mumbai, u. The Food. Inspector, Diuision-Il, Nalgonda Districtl and Food Inspector, Kakinad.a, E.G.District rep. bg the Public Prosecutor a. Gunturu Venkateswara Rao and anotherz

7. On the other hand, the learned A:;sistant Public Prosecutor supported the judgment impugned rn this Criminal Revision Case and contended that there are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned judgment. Takr ng this Court through the contents of the complaint lodged blr PW. 1 and the evidence of PW. 1, learned Assistant Public Proser:utor submitted that merely because of delay 1n launching F,rosecution, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner/ accused. There are no procedural irreguiarities in launching prost:cution against the petitioner/accused. The evidence placc.d on record clinchingly proves the guilt of the petitioner/ acctrsed beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences a-lleged against him. There are no circumstances to interfere with the judgment impugned in this Criminal Revision Case and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Cases. t 2007 scc online AP 1071 2 zooS scc online AP 1048 8

8. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for determination in this Criminal Revision Case is as follows: uWhether the bnpugned judgment, dated 75.72.2077, passed in Criminat Appeal No'17 of 2OO9 bg the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddg District at L.B'Nagar, is Iegallg sustainable?" POINT:- 9. Having given thoughtful 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 3g7 &,401 of Cr.P.C., cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, unless they are perverse or arrived at ignoring material evidence' Further' the Revisional power of this Court under Sections 397 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 orbasedonnomaterialorwherethematerialfactsarewholly ignored.orwherethejudicialdiscretionisexercisedarbitrarily or capriciously, this Court can interfere with the said decision in 9 exercise of its Revisional jurisdiction. Section 401 of Cr.P.C. enables the High Court to exercise all powers of ,eppellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision, as a part of Revisional power. Section 397 of Cr.P.C. confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or him" elf as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the rellrlarity of any proceeding of such inferior court. Thus, a duty rests on the High Court under Sections 397 and 4O1 of Cr P.C. to.correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage o1' justice.

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

11. In the lnstant case, the Courts below convicted the petitioner/accused of the offences Sections 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) of 10 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 to the Anal t Date on which the Public Analyst sent his report Date of filing of the complaint Date of issuance of notice Section 13 (2) of the Act

27.02.2003

28.O2.2003

26.O3.2003

15.09.2003 o 1.10.2003

12. Here, it is apt to extract Section 11 (a) of the Act, which reads as follows: - 1 1. Procedure to be followed by food inspectors ( 1) )ooo( (2) )ooo( (3) )ooo( (4) An article of food sei:zed under sub-section (4) of 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 al1d in any case not later than seven days after the receipt of the report of the public analyst. Provided that if an application is made to the magistrate in this beha.lf by the person from whom any article of food has been seized, the magistrate shall by order in writing direct the food inspector to produce such article before him within such time as may be specihed in the order. (5) )ooo( (6) ,ooo(

13. A plain reading of the above extracted sub-section (4) of 11 Section I 1 of the Act makes it clear that an article of food seized under Sub-section 4 of Section 10 and any adulterant seized under Sub-section (6) of Section 10 shall be produced before a Magistrate as soon as possible, and irr any case, not later than seven days after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst. In the instant case, the seized sample, admittedly, 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 mandar-ory stipulation contained under Section 11(4) of the Act regarding production of the sample before the Court. There is inordinate delay 1n producing the sample before the Court from the date of lifting the sample and also from the date of receipt of the Public Analyst Report would certainly CAl-rSE prej udice to the petitioner/accused, which is detrimental to his tlefence. There is absolutely no explanation offered by the prosr:cution for the abnormal delay in production of the sample belbre the Court. The Court below, while discussing the said astr)ect, held that since the petitioner/ accused had not availed remedy under Section 13(2) of PF Act to send the sample for trnalysis to the i L2 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, ts erroneous becamse 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 1-4. Further, Section 13(2) of the Act reads as follows: On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if aly, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the lrcal (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.

15. In the instant case, the Public Analyst Report was obtained on 26.03.2OO3 and the complaint was frled only 15.09.2003, i.e., nearly after six months. There is no 7 13 explanation for lodging the subject complaint belatedly after about six months, when the Public Analyst Ileport was very much available with the complainant as x 26.03.2003. Though the Public Analyst submitted his reporr on 26.03.2OO3, the Prosecution could not file the complaint till 15.09.2003. After liling of complaint, notice under Section 13(2) of the pFA Act was issued to the petitioner/ accused on 0f .10.2003, which is evident from the material placed on record. Thus, there was delay of about six months 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/accused had lost their valuable opportunity of getting the sample analyzed througgh Central Food Laboratory. The inordinate delay on the part of lhe 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 appe€rrs to have been violated, his prosecution if aliowed to continue, would be a lame prosecution. No convincing reason is t4 given as to why the complaint could not be lodged for such a long period.

15. A meticulous examination of the entire material placed on record reveals that the statutory rights under Sections 1i(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 indefeasible. They cannot be taken away in any circumstance. By launching the prosecution after an unexplained delay of about nine months from the date of receipt of report of the Public Analyst, the 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 petitioner/ accused has been denied an opportunit5r to prove his defence and hence, the prosecution was only one sided, which is against the well settled principles of Criminal Jurisprudence. Further, there are several material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW. 1, which goes to the roots ., 15 of the matter. Further, S rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, though sal,-' of adulterated article/food is an offence under Sections 2(ia)(nr) and 7(i) of PF Act, adulteration is not a manual process, but it is a mechanised process which cannot be undertaken by a petty vendor like the petitioner/ accused, that too for a sma-11 quantity of 5 Kgs found by PW. 1 in his shop. The report of the Analyst must state as to whether the article of food, i.e., j.gg..y analysed by him is injurious to the health, which is patently absent in this case. Viewed thus, the impugnr:d judgment of the Court below to the extent of convicting and sentencing the petitioner/ accused of the offence under Sectio:es 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) of PFA Act is improper, manifestly illegal wkrich resulted in miscarriage of justice, entitling the petitionr:r/accused for acquittal of the said offence by exercising revisional jurisdiclion of this Court under Sections 397 and 40 1 of Cr.P.C L7. For these reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 2(ia)(m) and 7 (ll of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, brr II Additional 16 District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, vide judgment, dated 15.12.2011, passed in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2O09 is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offence under Sections 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) 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

18. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, l The Court of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

2. The Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,special Mobile Court -cum- Xl Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, L B.Nagar.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad,[OUT] through Food lnspector, Division - ll, Ranga Reddy

4. One CC to PILLIX LAW FIRM Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ry- pcsd/PSL l o3 l ilE SLq7€ k 2 5 JUri zffi ({( o + .,) o o * HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 ORDER CRLRC.N0.2483 ot 2011 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE $b2\