Dismissed

The State of a.P., Through the Food Inspector, Gram v. Siram Rammohana Rao

Telangana HC20 Oct 2009CRLA/1246/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal by the State, the High Court upheld the trial Court's acquittal of accused persons found selling adulterated Vanaspathi oil. The Court held that the significant delay in lodging the complaint rendered the sample unfit for analysis, thus depriving the accused of their statutory right to be tried on the original evidence, making the prosecution case unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal of the accused persons passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

The State of a.P., Through the Food Inspector, Gram Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu

¶2

Criminal Appeal No.1246 of 2009

¶3

Judgment:

¶4

This appeal by the State under Section 378 (4) (5) & (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the judgment, th dated 1 9 December, 2006, in C.C.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge (FAC) I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, whereunder and whereby, the respondents-accused were found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i), 7(i) and 2 (1a) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the P.F.A.Act’) and were acquitted.

¶5

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows:

¶6

P.W.1 inspected the Kirana Shop of accused No.1 at Main Road, Bhattiprolu Village, on 23-122002. At that time, accused No.1 was transacting the business. P.W.1 secured the presence of P.W.2 and purchased three packets of Vanaspathi Oil. On suspicion that it was adulterated, he divided the purchased product into three equal parts, placed

¶7

them in separate empty clean plastic containers, sealed them, affixed labels on them, obtained the signatures of accused No.1, P.Ws.2 and 3 thereon and forwarded one sample packet for analysis to the public analyst, who after conducting the analysis, opined that the sample was adulterated. On 31-032004, after receipt of written consent order under Section 20 (1) of the P.F.A.Act from the State Food Health Authority, P.W.1 lodged the complaint and issued notices under Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A. Act to accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶8

3. When a charge under Section 16 (1) (a) (i), 7 (i) and 2 (1a) (m) of the P.F.A.Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶9

4. In order to substantiate its case, the Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused.

¶10

5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the shelf life of Article of food lifted is only nine months, that there

¶11

was a delay of one year four months in lodging the complaint from the date of lifting sample and serving notice under Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A.Act, the valuable right of the accused has been denied and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶12

6. Now the point for determination is, whether the Prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i), 7 (i) and 2 (1a) (m) of the P.F.A. Act, 1954.

¶13

7. The learned Counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that he purchased the vanaspathi oil, divided the same into three equal parts and sent one part therein to the public analyst; that the public analyst, in his report, opined that the sample was adulterated: that the accused have, in fact, not exercised their right conferred under Section 13 (2) of the Act and therefore, acquittal of the accused on the ground that they lost their valuable right cannot be accepted and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal.

¶14

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 is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court cannot disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same.

¶15

9. P.W.1 lifted the sample of Vanaspathi Oil on 23-12-2002 from the shop of accused No.1 in the presence of P.W.2 and others and after observing the necessary formalities, he purchased 1500 ml of Vanaspathi Oil and divided it into three equal parts and sent one sealed packet for analysis. The analyst, after analysis, opined that the sample does not conform to the standards of red units and therefore, it is adulterated. P.W.1 informed the same to the State

¶16

Food Health Authority, which gave Ex.P.14-written consent order, dated 16-12-2002, to prosecute the accused. It is not in dispute that the sample was lifted on 23-12-2002 and that the complaint was filed on 30-04-2004 and that the shelf life of the said article of food was only 9 months. It is to be seen that by the date of complaint itself, the shelf life of the article of food has expired. The food inspector, who purchased the sealed packets of Vanaspathi oil, might not have added the preservative so as to keep the same fit for analysis. Then the possibility of chemical changes would take place in the oil cannot be ruled out. Though the accused have not made any application requesting the Magistrate to send the second sample for analysis, but at the same time no useful purpose would be served by making such a request in view of the delay of one year three months in receiving the statutory notice as contemplated under Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A.Act and in view of the fact that the article of food may not be fit for analysis after such a long time. Therefore, the valuable right conferred on the accused has been lost. There cannot be any dispute that the report given by the Director, Central Food

¶17

Laboratory would supercede the report of public analyst. The trial Court, after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused and the said order of acquittal does not suffer from any serious infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court.

¶18

10. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is th dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 1 9 December, 2006, in C.C.No.34 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge (FAC) I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

¶20

_____________ (K.C.Bhanu, J)

¶21

th 20 October, 2009 lur

The State of a.P., Through the Food Inspector, Gram v. Siram Rammohana Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of a.P., Through the Food Inspector, Gram v. Siram Rammohana Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of A.P. Vs Madava Mahanti Srinivas

Gotru Srivenkata Adinarayana Rao, Vs The State

G.Ravinder Rao, Vs State of A.P.

G. Madhusudana Rao Vs State

Khantamananeni Basava Purramma Vs Sk.Khasimbee

Penchala Mallaiah Vs Ramidi Shanker Reddy