Dismissed

The State of A.P. v. Madava Mahanti Srinivas

Telangana HC19 Oct 2009CRLA/1648/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 378 CrPC, the State challenged the acquittal of the accused for food adulteration offences. The High Court held that the Department's abnormal delay in filing the complaint deprived the accused of their valuable right to a second sample analysis. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitting the accused.

The State of A.P. Vs Madava Mahanti Srinivas — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1648 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Food Inspector, Division-I, Srikakula, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶9

..... Appellant/Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

1. Madava Mahanti Srinivas

¶12

2. Grandhi Mruthunjayarao

¶13

3. M/s. Vasavi Agro Products

¶14

..... Respondents/Accused

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

JUDGMENT:

¶17

This Criminal Appeal, under Sections 378 (4) (5) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondents/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (ii), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short 'the Act'), in its judgment, dated 23.03.2006, in S.T.C.No.307 of 2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajam.

¶18

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

¶19

P.W.1-Food Inspector, Division-I, Srikakulam, along with his attender, visited the manufacturing unit of A3-M/s. Sri Vasavi Agro Products at Anthakapalli Village, Rajam Mandal, Srikakulam District, on 04.06.2001 at about 3.00 p.m. At that time, A1 was present in the premises and doing business. On enquiry, A1 informed that he was the salesman of the company and A3 was the Managing Partner of the company. At the time of inspection of the premises in question, P.W.1 found 20 cases each case containing 12 bottles each of 1,000 ml. of drinking water. A1 disclosed that aqua mineral drinking water was being manufactured and kept for sale of human consumption. P.W.1, on suspicion that it was adulterated, purchased 9 sealed bottles each 1,000 ml. and divided the same into three parts. After following the due procedure under the Act and the Rules made therein, one part

¶20

of the sample packet was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst after analysis vide his report, dated 06.06.2001, opined that the sample contains coliforms, molds and salmonella Pathogenic organism and therefore, it is adulterated. Thereafter, P.W.1 submitted a detailed report to the Director of the Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs and Food Health Administration, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, for consent and the said authority gave consent on 13.05.2002 to launch the prosecution against the accused. Thereafter, the complaint was filed.

¶21

3. The case was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (ii), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (e) of the Act.

¶22

4. When the accused was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the accusations levelled against them and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶23

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25.

¶24

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with reference to the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no evidence.

¶25

7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record,

¶26

acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this Criminal Appeal by the State.

¶27

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (ii), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (e) of the Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper.

¶28

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly go to show that the article of sample was purchased from the manufacturing unit of M/s. Sri Vasavi Agro Products i.e., A3; that as per the report of the Public Analyst, the same was found to be adulterated, and therefore, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (ii), 7 (i) and 2 (ia) (e) of the Act, and he prays to set aside the order of acquittal.

¶29

10. There cannot be any dispute that though the Appellate Court has got full power to reappreciate the evidence available on record, still it will slow in interfering with the findings in a judgment of acquittal in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, normally this Court would not interfere with the same.

¶30

11. The article in question was purchased by P.W.1 on 04.06.2001. The Public Analyst gave report on 12.07.2001. The sanction order was given on 13.05.2002. Admittedly, the shelf life of the article of food is only six months. The abnormal delay in lodging complaint is not properly explained.

¶31

12. The main ground on which the accused was acquitted is that the accused lost his valuable right under Section 13 (2) of the Act as there was abnormal delay of nearly one year in filing the complaint and by that time, the other sample would not be fit for analysis even if the accused exercises their right to send the second sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The right conferred on the accused under Section 13 (2) of the Act is a valuable right because once the accused exercise their right to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, the report that may be given by it becomes final and the report of the Public Analyst will be superceded by that report. It would be a futile exercise in making such a request. After lapse of one year, the second sample may not be fit for analysis. The true values even if analysed by second analyst would not come. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused on the ground that there was a violation of Section 13 (2) of the Act. The findings are based upon the proper appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, the said order does not call for any interference by this Court. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 23.03.2006, in S.T.C.No.307 of 2005, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate

¶33

of I Class, Rajam.

¶34

(K.C. BHANU, J)

¶35

Date: 19^th October, 2009

¶36

The State of A.P. v. Madava Mahanti Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of A.P. v. Madava Mahanti Srinivas

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

Sri Indrakaran Agarwal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Venkata Narayana , Vs The State of A.P.

K.S.Ghousia Begum, Vs The State

Gotru Srivenkata Adinarayana Rao, Vs The State

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

M/s.Mittal Steels, Rep.by its Sole Proprietor Vs Mr.G.Raju