IMPORTANT POINT
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is essential for sustaining a conviction.

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 :

(i). On 16.04.2007 at about 10.40 a.m., P.W.1-Food Inspector, visited the Kirana premises of the petitioner and found an open polythene gunny bag containing approximately 20 Kgs. of dall, on enquiry he disclosed that it is read gran dall and kept for sale to the public for human consumption.

(ii). Then P.W.1 purchased 1500 grams of said Red Gram dall by paying Rs.45/-, obtained Ex.P.2 cash receipt and issued Ex.P.3 Form-VI notice. P.W.1 divided the same into three equal parts and placed into three empty, clean and dry plastic bottles and each bottle capped, screwed, fastened and sealed as well obtained signature of the accused on each sample bottle. The public analyst opined under Ex.P.11 that the sample contain synthetic food colour Tartrazine and is therefore adulterated.

(iii). On obtaining permission from Director and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad launched the prosecution against the accused.

4. The complaint was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.774 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the charge under Section 7(i) and 2(ia)(i) punishable under Section 16(1-A)(ii) of the PFA Act and Rules 23 and 29 of PFA Rules, 1955 and sentenced him to under undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.15 of 2010, before the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and the said appeal was dismissed, vide judgment dated 12.03.2012, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

7. Heard B.P. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?”

9. Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that prosecution failed to establish the method of packing of sample; that P.W.2, who said to be mediator, did not support the prosecution version; that the remaining two samples were not produced before the trial Court, thereby, no opportunity was given to the defence to examine the said sample bottles; that there is a violation of Section 11(4) of PFA Act by P.W.1 that any adulterant seized under Section 10(6) shall be produced before a Magistrate as soon as possible and in any case not later than seven days after receipt of the report of the public analyst, thereby, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt