This criminal appeal challenges an acquittal where the trial court held a Food Inspector lacked jurisdiction to inspect premises in a different division. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
Criminal appeal dismissed; trial court's acquittal affirmed.
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.
IN THE HGIH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
DATED THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
CRL.A.No.616 OF 2004
Between:
The Food Inspector, D-I, Srikakulam, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Appellant
A n d
Jai Kumar Patro
…Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
CRL.A.No.616 OF 2004
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-03-2002 in S.T.C.No.28 of 2000, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Palasa, wherein the respondent/accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 16(i) (a) (ii) read with Section 7(v) and 2(ia) (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Rules and was acquitted thereof under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the appellant-State. None
appeared for the respondent/ accused. Perused the record.
3. The Food Inspector, Division I, Srikakulam filed a complaint against the respondent/accused alleging that on 07-05-1994 at 10-00 A.M., he visited the premises of Sidda Bhairavi Ice Candy by the side of NH-5 at Kasibugga in Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District and found the accused, who is proprietor of the Ice Parlour, transacting the business and suspecting the ice candies kept for sale for human consumption to be adulterated, lifted 18 candies as sample by paying Rs.9/- in the presence of his attender-P.W.2 and an independent mediator-P.W.3 under a panchanama-Ex.P-6 and that the sample was sent for analysis and the public analyst in his
report-Ex.P-11 dated 18-06-1994 opined that the samples contained saccharin and is, therefore, adulterated. After obtaining necessary sanction order under Ex.P-12, the Food Inspector filed the complaint. Subsequently, noticeEx.P-14 under Section 13(2) of the Act was also served on the accused under his acknowledgement-Ex.P-16.
4. The accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty.
5. In support of their case, the prosecution examined the Food Inspector as P.W.1 and his attender as P.W.2 and the independent mediator as P.W.3 and marked Es.P-1 to P-16. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondent/accused.
6. P.W.2, the attender, supported the evidence
of P.W.1, but P.W.3, the independent mediator, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. However, based on the available evidence on record, the trial Court gave findings to the effect that the Food Inspector had lifted the sample duly following the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules and there had not been any violation of the provisions of the Act and that the sample was
found to be adulterated as per the report of the public analyst. However, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that P.W.1 was a Food Inspector admittedly of Division I of Srikakulam and he has no jurisdiction to inspect the Ice Parlour admittedly situate near Kasibugga in Palasa Mandal which comes under
Division III. The trial Court followed the decision of this Court in FOOD INSPECTOR, MCH, HYDERABAD REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD V. ANTHONI AND THOMA S[1] wherein it was held as under:
“Food Inspector may exercise jurisdiction within the limits of its jurisdiction. The Food Inspector is working for Rangareddy District and the bakery is located in Tarnaka in Hyderabad which is in the Hyderabad district. Rule 11 of the PFA Rules provides that the Food Inspector may exercise jurisdiction within the local limits of his jurisdiction to inspect any premises whereat food articles are kept for sale for human consumption.”
7. It is not disputed that P.W.1 was a Food Inspector for Division I of Srikakulam and his area of operation is Division I only. In the complaint, it is stated that he was in charge of Division III also. As rightly
observed by the trial Court, the prosecution has not taken any care to see that necessary proceedings placing P.W.1 in full additional charge of Division III was produced before the Court to show that he has necessary jurisdiction over Division III as well on the date of commission of the offence. In the absence of any such proceedings showing that P.W.1 was kept in full additional charge of Division III on that day, the act of P.W.1 in lifting the sample from the Ice Parlour of the accused situate at Kasibugga in Palasa Mandal in Division III, is clearly without authority and beyond the jurisdiction of P.W.1. 8. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly held that P.W.1
had no jurisdiction to inspect the shop of accused and lift the sample. The impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court on the said ground does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court.
9. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
Dated 16th April, 2010. Lrkm.
[1] 1990(2) FAC APHC
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's acquittal based on lack of jurisdiction regarding the Food Inspector's area of operation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
4 provisions across 3 enactments
The Food Inspector, D-I, Srikakulam, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor
Jai Kumar Patro
G.V.SEETHAPATHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
