Appeal against acquittal in food adulteration case. Court held that non-interference is warranted as there are no substantial or compelling reasons to disturb the trial court's finding that the sample was not representative.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.176 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, filed this appeal under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment, dated 06.12.2007 passed in C.C.No.98 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parchur, whereunder and whereby, the respondent/sole accused was found not guilty of the offence under Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this case, may be stated as follows:
P.W.1, who was the Food Inspector, along with his attender, inspected the kirana shop of the accused, who was transacting the business, on 21.02.2006 at about 4.30 a.m. and found 10 kgs of edible groundnut oil in a loose tin kept for sale for human consumption. Suspecting that it was adulterated, he purchased 750 ml of groundnut oil and divided the same into three equal parts. After following due procedure, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst after analysis, opined that the sample does not conform to the standards of Butyro-refractometer reading at 40 C Bellier’s test (Turbidity temperature acetic acid method) iodine value and unsaponifiable matter and therefore, it was adulterated. After obtaining written consent, prosecution was launched. After receipt of
notice contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Act, the accused made a request to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Accordingly, the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. The Central Analyst sent a report stating that the sample does not conform to the standards as prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short ‘the Rules’).
3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the accusation levelled against him, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.
4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accused was not guilty of the accusation levelled against him and accordingly, acquitted him. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.
6. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant proved the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against him.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that he purchased 750 ml of groundnut oil and sent the sample to the Public Analyst for analysis and the public analyst report would clearly go to show that the sample was adulterated and that the Central Analyst also opined that the sample does not conform to the standards, and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused.
8. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under the law that the accused is presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. However, this Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence to know whether the findings are passed on proper appreciation of evidence on record or any perverse finding was recorded or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or admissible evidence has been overlooked. In short, there must be substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal.
9. The evidence of P.W.1 would clearly go to show that he purchased 750 ml of groundnut oil from the shop of the accused and divided the same into three equal parts. After following due procedure, one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst. After analysis, the Public Analyst opined that it was adulterated. Thereafter, the accused made a request to the Court to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The Central Analyst by his report – Ex.P.18 opined that the sample does not conform to the standards prescribed under the Rules. The ground on which the trial Court acquitted the accused was that P.W.1 admitted that while lifting 750 ml of groundnut oil from 10kgs, he has not stirred the oil in clockwise and anti-clock wise direction so as to make the article of food homogeneous. Therefore, the sample that was taken from the shop of the accused does not represent the entire quantity. That is the reason why, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference
by this Court, as there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal.
10. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 06.12.2007 in C.C.No.98 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parchur.
K.C.BHANU, J
3rd FEBRUARY, 2010.
kvni
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the evidence surmising the sample was non-representative due to lack of stirring justifies setting aside the acquittal.
Whether this Court should interfere with the order of acquittal in a food adulteration case.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ACCUSED
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
