Telangana High Court
CRLA/1333/2012 of The Food Inspector, rep. by the P.P., Vs Abdul Baqui on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1333 OF 2012 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal, by the Food Inspector, represented by Public Prosecutor under Section 378 (4), (5) &(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is directed against the judgment,
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1333 OF 2012
This Criminal Appeal, by the Food Inspector, represented byPublic Prosecutor under Section 378 (4), (5) &(1) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is directed against thejudgment, dated 18.06.2009, in Calendar Case No.4 of 2007 on the fileof the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banswada, whereunder andwhereby, respondents/accused were acquitted of the offencespunishable under Sections 16 (1) (a) (i), 7(i) & 2(ia) of Prevention ofFood Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the presentCriminal Appeal may be stated as follows:
The Food Inspector inspected the shop of A-1 on 22.06.2005 atabout 2.30 p.m and found A-1 was transacting the business of Bisleriwater bottles manufactured by A-3 firm, represented by A-2. On suspicion of adulteration, he purchased 9 Bisleri waterbottles, divided the same into three parts, sealed and one bottle wassent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst, after analysis, opinedthat the sample does not confirm to Aerobic Microbial count andCaliform Count and therefore, it is adulterated. Complaint was filed on19.01.2007 after obtaining necessary permission from the Local HeathAuthority and thereafter, notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act hasbeen served on 06.02.2007.
3. When the accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C.they pleaded not guilty.
4. To substantiate the case of the accused, the prosecutionexamined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15. On behalf ofthe defence, no witnesses were examined but Ex.D.1 was marked.
5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, came tothe conclusion that there was an abnormal delay in serving the noticeunder Section 13 (2) of the Act and thereby causing great prejudice tothe accused in not sending one sample to the Central Food Laboratoryand therefore, acquitted the accused.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for theappellant, contended that the learned Magistrate has not consideredthe evidence of prosecution witnesses; that delay in filing thecomplaint is fatal to the case of prosecution and hence, it is a fit case toadmit the appeal.
7. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumedto be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of law isfurther strengthened by an order of acquittal. In dealing with theappeal against the order of acquittal, there must be compelling orsubstantial reasons to interfere with the same. Even if the evidence ofP.W.1 is to be accepted as true and correct, the Food Inspector haspurchased 9 Bisleri water bottles of one liter each manufactured by A-3-company. Admittedly, even according to P.W.1, who is the FoodInspector, the shelf life of the water is six months and the sample wastaken on 22.06.2005. If that is the case, the shelf life of the water wouldexpire on or before 22.11.2005. Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Actwas served on 06.02.2007 i.e., more than one year after lifting of thesample. The valuable right is conferred upon the accused to requestthe Court to send second sample to the Director of Central FoodLaboratory for analysis. When the report is received from the Directorof Central Food Laboratory, it supersedes the report of public analystunder Sub Section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. The valuable right hasbeen denied by the complainant with a delay of more than one year. Therefore, at that point of time, no useful purpose would be served,even if the accused makes an application to send second sample foranalysis. So, precisely the trial Court acquitted the accused and that order needs no interference by this Court.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage ofadmission itself. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in theCriminal Appeal shall stand closed.
DECEMBER 28, 2012
YVL
________________
K.C.BHANU, J
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
YVL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1333 OF 201228.12.2012