Criminal Appeal against the acquittal of a vendor. The Apex Court dismissed the appeal upholding the lower Court's finding that the prosecution was invalid due to improper service of the Section 13(2) notice required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
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 N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1193 OF 2004
JUDGMENT:-
The appeal is filed questioning the acquittal of the accused No.1 in Calendar Case No.82 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Medak.
2. A.1 is said to be the vendor of M/s. T.Narsimulu Kirana & General Stores at Chegunta village and A.2 is owner of the said shop. On 28.10.1998 the Food Inspector-PW.1 inspected the shop, at that time A.1 was present. Then, PW.1 obtained samples of groundnut oil and it was sent for analysis. As per the analyst report, it was found to be adulterated. Therefore, after obtaining the permission, the case was filed. A.4 is said to be manufacturer of the said groundnut oil and A.3 was charged of the sales being in-charge of A.4. The case against A.3 and A.4 was separated. After considering the material evidence on record, the lower Court convicted the owner of the shop i.e., A.2, but acquitted A.1, who is said to have sold the groundnut oil. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
3. The point for consideration is whether the acquittal of A.1 is proper?
4. POINT:
The lower Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was no service of notice to A.1 under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and accordingly acquitted A.1. The sample was said to have been taken on 28.10.1998, the analyst report is said to have been received on
08.12.1998 and thereafter sanction was received on 11.05.1999 and the charge sheet was said to have been filed on 09.06.1999. According to the case of the prosecution, the notice was said to have been served on 08.07.1999 and the case was said to have been taken on file on 14.06.1999. The lower Court found that the notice was not served within ten days after institution of the prosecution and therefore, the prosecution is not valid. It was not a service by post and PW.1 claims that it was served personally. Ex.P.40 discloses the service and also the filing of the acknowledgment. Though the notice is said to have been sent under Ex.P.32 on 17.06.1999 it is not served and the postal acknowledgement is also not filed. The prosecution wanted to rely upon the endorsement of A.1 under Ex.P.39 on 08.07.1999. The evidence of PW.1 does not disclose need for such a personal notice and evidently, there is no material to show that the postal notice was served or not served. Therefore, the lower Court has given a benefit of doubt since already the owner of the shop was convicted. I do not find any need to interfere with the reasons given by the learned Magistrate.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
Date:09-02-2012 INL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of A-1 is proper in view of the lower Court's finding regarding non-service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Whether the trial Court correctly concluded that the prosecution was invalid due to lack of valid service of notice within ten days of institution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Appeal by A-1
State of Andhra Pradesh
N.R.L. Nageswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
