IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Uddagari Satyarao – Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep By PP., And Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No.1106 of 2008
Decided On : 06-12-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 397, 401, 207, 251, 313, 388 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 7(v), 2(ia)(j), 10(7) - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 -Rules 23, 29 - Right to silence – Offence Punishable –First Information Report -Substance of accusation to be stated - Calling for records to exercise powers of revision - Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life -Whether judgment, in Criminal Appeal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with such judgment of Appellate Judge –Held, Court pointed out that analysts did not mention in their reports that food article is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption - Learned Additional Sessions Judge distinguished same for giving finding that as per standards prescribed under PFA Rules, sago shall not contain any other colouring matter, which is prohibited under Rule 23 of PFA Rules - Findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard are convincing - Accused also canvassed before learned Additional Sessions Judge that there was delay in furnishing public analyst opinion which was not found favour by learned Additional Sessions Judge - He distinguished facts where there was delay of more than one and half years in producing sample -Accused did not dispute signatures on exhibits that are marked by complainant - Even it is not defence of accused that Food Inspector did not visit shop and did not lift samples - Under circumstances, Court of considered view that learned Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly appreciated evidence on record – Ordered Accordingly.
ORDER :
This is a Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’) on behalf of the petitioner, who is accused in Calendar Case No.47 of 2002, on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srungavarapukota (for short, ‘the trial Court’), and appellant in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2003 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’), with a prayer to revise the judgment, dated 24.07.2008, in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2003; where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner herein confirming the judgment, dated 08.09.2003, passed in C.C. No.47 of 2002 by the learned Magistrate, Srungavarapukota.
2. The petitioner faced trial in C.C. No.47 of 2002 under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) R/w. Section 7(v) and 2(ia)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Food Adulteration Act’) R/w. Rules 23 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, ‘the PFA Rules’) and suffered conviction before the trial Court and further the Appeal filed by him before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram came to be dismissed. Having felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused in the Calendar Case, who was the unsuccessful appellant in the Criminal Appeal, approached this Court by way of this Criminal Revision Case.
3. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Food Inspector of Division – I, Vizianagaram filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging, in substance, that on 18.05.2001 at about 10:30 AM, the complainant (hereinafter referred to as Food Inspector) inspected the kirana shop of the accused, situated at the main road of Kottam Village, along with his Assistant-cum- Typist viz., R. Eswara Rao (PW.3). The accused was transacting business at the time of the inspection. The Food Inspector, in the shop of the accused, found kirana articles such as Rice, Spices, Dals, Edible Oils, Sago etc., which are kept for sale of human consumption. The Food Inspector, suspecting adulteration in sago, purchased 750 grams of sago from the shop of the accused by paying Rs.15/- in the presence of the Village Talayari (PW.2) and also PW.3. The accused passed a receipt after receiving the sale price. Then, the Food Inspector served Form-VI notice on the accused informing his intention of sending the sample to the Public Analyst, Hyderabad for the purpose of analysis. He divided the 750 grams of sago into three equal parts of 250 grams each and placed them in three clean, dry and empty plastic tins and closed them tightly with caps and sealed them. Then, the Food Inspector affixed labels bearing Code No.122/VZM/D-1 and Serial No.2022/2001 of Local (Health) Authority on each of the three plastic tins and affixed five seals with wax on each of the three plastic tins and then obtained signatures of the accused on the labels. Each sample was covered with thick cover paper and their ends were neatly folded in and pasted together with gum. Then, the paper slips containing signature, code number and serial number were pasted on each of the three plastic tins covering them from bottom to top and he obtained the signatures of the accused on each of three sample tins in such a manner that both paper slips and cover paper carry a part of signature of the accused. Then, each of three sample tins were fastened by means of strong twine both above and across the sample packets and then he affixed four seals with sealing wax on each packet covering the knots of the twine also (one seal on the top and another seal on the bottom and the remaining two seals on both sides of the sample plastic tins). Then, the Food Inspector asked the accused to disclose
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the prescribed standards and procedural requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the ....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity in concurrent findings. Refusal to provide food sample with threats constitutes prevention under PFA; person present ....
Procedural non-compliance does not warrant acquittal unless it results in demonstrable prejudice; the evidence confirmed the adulteration of food.
Conviction upheld for selling adulterated food, emphasizing mandatory health standards and procedural compliance in food safety regulations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that statutory provisions must be strictly interpreted, and non-compliance with procedural requirements may not necessarily invalidate the prosecut....
The court emphasized the compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the Rules, and discussed the applicability of the FSS Act, highlighting the imposition of....
The judgment emphasized the importance of placing all relevant materials before the sanctioning authority, the liability of individuals in a proprietorship concern, and the sufficiency of evidence in....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.