Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2010 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 Jan 2010
- Bench
- K C BHANU
Outcome
Dismissed
10) Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the
Provisions considered
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 s. 16(1)(a)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 251
Key paragraphs
- Para 55) The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the accused not guilty, and accordingly, acquitted them. Challenging the judgment of acquittal, the complainant-State has filed the present Criminal Appeal. 6) Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt…
Judgment
- This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment, dated 22-03-2007 delivered in C.C. No. 403 of 2004 by I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, whereunder and whereby, the respondents-accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”). 2) The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector, Tenali, on 03.06.2003, at about 01.00 P.M., inspected the business premises i.e. Guntur District Milk Products Mutually Aided Co- operative Union Limited, Sangam Dairy, Vadlamuri (the 3rd respondent herein). On suspicion that some sealed packets containing milk, which were meant for sale for human consumption, were adulterated, he purchased 1500 ML of pasteurized milk from A1 by paying the price. After dividing the same into 3 equal parts, one sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, who in turn, sent his report opining that the milk was adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the Director of Preventive Medicine and Public Health Laboratories and Food Health Administration, Hyderabad, the complainant lodged a complaint against respondents-A1 to A3 before I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. 3) When A1 to A3 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4) To substantiate the charge leveled against A1 to A3, who are the respondents herein, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 on its behalf. DW1 was examined and Ex.D1 was got marked on behalf of the defence.
The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the accused not guilty, and accordingly, acquitted them. Challenging the judgment of acquittal, the complainant-State has filed the present Criminal Appeal. 6) Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of respondents-A1 to A3 for the offence punishable Under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, beyond all reasonable doubt? 7) Counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PW1 is very clear that he purchased the article of Food in question from A1 and the Analyst Report Ex.P9 would clearly go to show that the milk was adulterated, and therefore, she prays to set aside the judgment of acquittal. 8) There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Ordinarily, the appellate Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal unless the finding of the trial Court is shown to be perverse or contrary to law and not based on evidence. 9) PW1, Food Inspector, purchased the pasteurized milk for the purpose of analysis on 03.06.2003. The Public Analyst, vide his report dated 19.06.2003 marked as Ex.P9, opined that the sample was found to be adulterated as it was deficient in milk fat content by about
Operative part
15.0% and milk solids not fat content by about 8.5%. The competent authority gave consent on 17.12.2003 for launching prosecution against the accused, whereas the complaint was filed on 29.07.2004. Thus, there was a delay of nearly one year from the date of receipt of the Analyst Report to the date of filing of the complaint. Further, there is no evidence to show that Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served on the accused. Therefore, the accused could not exercise their right of making request to the Magistrate concerned to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Even otherwise, in view of non-serving of notice, if they had made any such request, no useful purpose would have been served, because the article of food by that time, might not be fit for analysis, and the true values would not come, inasmuch as the article of food, at best, can be used before three months from the date of its manufacture. Therefore, the trial Court, after elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment impugned in this appeal. 10) Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the Judgment, dated 22-03-2007 in C.C. No. 403 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J. 29th January, 2010
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 10) Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — s. 16(1)(a); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 251.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Jan 2010. The bench was K C BHANU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.