Allowed

Oruganti Laxminarayana , (A-1) v. State of A.P.

Telangana HC10 Jul 2013CRLRC/1393/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision allowed petitioners charged with selling adulterated red gram dal. The court quashed the conviction and sentence, ruling that a marginal excess of 0.31% in weevilled grains compared to the 3% limit justified acquittal, relying on Apex Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence of imprisonment and fine set aside; accused acquitted; fine returned if paid.

Oruganti Laxminarayana , (A-1) Vs State of A.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1393 OF 2006

¶2

DATED 10^th JULY, 2013.

¶3

BETWEEN :

¶4

O.Laxminarayana & others

¶5

.. Petitioners-A.1 to A.3

¶6

and State of A.P.

¶7

..Respondent

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1393 OF 2006

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 filed this Criminal Revision Case by invoking the provision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.08.2006 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2005 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet.

¶11

Initially, petitioners were prosecuted in C.C.No.400 of 2002 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, wherein vide judgment dated 05.05.2005 they were convicted under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short ‘the Act’). Challenging the same, accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2005.

¶12

While dismissing the said appeal, the learned Appellate Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, present revision has been preferred.

¶13

Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel, for the revision petitioners and perused the entire material on record.

¶14

Allegations against the accused are of selling adulterated red gram dal.

¶15

The main contention of the learned senior counsel is that the percentage of weevilled grains was only 0.31% in excess of the permissible limits prescribed in Appendix 15-A of the Act, which is very meagre in nature and can be ignored. In this context, he placed

¶16

reliance on P.S.Sharma v Madanlal Kasturichandj i^[1] .

¶17

This Court perused the entire record, judgments of the Courts below and also the reported judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

¶18

In the above referred decision, the Apex Court upheld the order of acquittal rendered by the Courts below on the ground that the difference alleged by the prosecution is marginal in nature.

¶19

In the case on hand also, the permissible limit of weevilled grains is 3% and the alleged excess percentage of 0.31% is very marginal in nature. In view of the proposition settled by the Apex Court in the above referred case, this Court is of the view that the accused can be acquitted.

¶20

Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioners by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is hereby set aside and the accused are acquitted of the offence levelled against them. Fine amounts paid by the revision petitioners, if any, shall be returned to them.

¶21

Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶23

Date : 10.07.2013 sur

¶24

[1] 2002 (2) FAC 224

Oruganti Laxminarayana , (A-1) v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oruganti Laxminarayana , (A-1) v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Prasad, Vs The State of A.P.

Chinthakayala Prabhakar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.v.Virachary, Vs Smt.P.Pushpamma , Veeraiah Chary,.

M. Veera Venkata Satyanrayana , Pedababu Vs The State of A.P.

Kouru Rama Rao, Vs Konatam Suryakumari

P.Deva Biksham, (A-1), Vs The State, rep., by the District Insepector