IMPORTANT POINT
Compliance with mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is essential for a valid prosecution; failure to do so results in acquittal.

ORDER :

V SRINIVAS, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 01.11.2010 in Crl.A.No.56 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Ongole, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the judgment dated 14.05.2009 in C.C.No.139 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Parchur, 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”), the petitioners/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”).

2. The revision case was admitted on 11.11.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3079 of 2010.

3. The shorn of prosecution case is that:

i). The accused being proprietor of M/s.Ghan Backery and Tea Stall (Manufacturing Unit) at Inkollu, is selling adulterated Bakery Biscuits. On 15.02.2006 at about 02.30 p.m., the complainant along with his attender visited the said manufacturing unit in the presence of accused. During inspection, P.W.1 suspected the quality of said biscuits of twenty packets to be adulterated, purchased nine hundred grams of biscuits from two packets of Rs.24/- and obtained Ex.P.3 cash receipt and also served copy of Ex.P.4 form VI notice. Then the nine hundred(900) grams of Bakery Biscuits was equally divided into three parts i.e., three hundred grams, kept each part in a thick white polythene cover and again kept each part into a clean dry empty plastic container and closed the mouths with lids and affixed a label bearing code and serial No.ZIII/PKM/DI/21897/2006 on each sample. Each sample container was wrapped in a thick brown paper and the ends were neatly folded and affixed with gum and obtained signatures of accused and L.W.2-Shaik Jilani on each sample under the cover of Ex.P.6 Panchanama.

ii). On 16.02.2006, P.W.1 sent one part of sample along with Ex.P.7 Form VII memorandum to the public analyst, Hyderabad under Exs.P.8 and P.9 postal receipts. On 28.03.2006, P.W.1 received, Ex.P.11 Public Analyst Report stating that the sample contains a non-permitted synthetic colour Metanil Yellow and is adulterated as per Section 2(ia)(j) of the PFA Act.

Iii). Thereafter, he sent a detained report along with photocopies of case documents to the Director and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad and obtained sanction orders to prosecute the petitioner and prepared complaint and filed the same before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Parchur.

4. The said complaint was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.139 of 2007 and before the trial Court, P.W.1, who is complainant, alone was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.17 were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner/accused.

5. 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 sentenced him to under undergo rigorous 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 (1) month.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.56 of 2009, before the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Ongole and the said appeal was dismissed, vide judgment dated 01.11.2010, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

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

8. Heard Smt.Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

9. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision