V. SRINIVAS
Tontepu Narasimha Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. , Rep By Its PP Hyd. – Respondent
ORDER :
V. Srinivas, J.
Assailing the judgment dated 12.03.2012 in Crl.A.No.15 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the judgment dated 11.01.2010 in C.C.No.774 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru, for the charge under Section 7(i) and 2(ia)(i) punishable under Section 16(1-A)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the “PFA Act”) and Rule 23 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the “PFA Rules”), the petitioners/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. The revision case was admitted on 14.03.2012 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.682 of 2012.
3. The shorn of prosecution case is that :
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is essential for sustaining a conviction.
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is essential for sustaining a conviction.
Compliance with mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is essential for a valid prosecution; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Mandatory compliance with procedural rules in food adulteration cases is essential for a valid conviction; failure to adhere to these rules undermines the prosecution's case.
Criminal liability for food adulteration requires evidence of intent; marginal deviations due to natural causes do not justify conviction or prosecution.
Proper sampling procedures under Section 11 of the Act are vital for establishing food adulteration.
Testing the sample in a laboratory defined under Section 23(1-A)(ee) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is essential for a successful prosecution.
The court established that non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act invalidates a conviction, emphasizing the importance of independent witness testi....
The delay in filing the complaint and the delay in sending the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory were fatal to the case of the prosecution, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Point of Law : Court do not find any perversity, illegality or error in the impugned judgments warranting any interference at hands of this Court. [Para 25]
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.