Point of Law: Food Inspector having taken steps to proceed against distiller, accused is entitled to take defence provided by Section 19(2) (b). It is not case of prosecution that accused did not properly store food article and that he did not sell food article in same state as he purchased it. Having regard to provision in Section 19(2) of Act, 1954 prosecution case falls to ground on this aspect.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. V. Rohit, learned counsel representing Sri. V. Ravi Kiran Rao learned counsel for the accused.

2. The State is in appeal against judgment dated 31.10.2008 rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar in C.C. No. 36 of 2002 granting acquittal on the charge committing offences under Sections 16(1)(a), 7(i) and 2 (ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act, 1954).

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.1999 at 01.20 p.m. LW-1 Food Inspector visited the premises of M/s. Laxmi General Store and Book Sellers and Stationery, Main Road, Shadnagar. He introduced himself as Food Inspector to Accused No. 1, who was found to be managing the business, inspected the commodities of the shop and found 33 bottles of 300 ml. each quantity of Thums-Up cool drinks (beverage) kept in plastic boxes in Refrigerator for sale to public for consumption. Suspecting that there is adulteration in the said stock of Thums-Up cool drinks, LW-1 decided to lift samples for analysis, purchased 9 sealed bottles from Accused No. 1 for Rs. 9/- per bottle, obtained cash receipt, drawn up notice in Form-VI and served on accused No. 1 for the purpose of sending the samples for analysis. LW-1 divided 9 Thums-UP bottles into three equal parts, tied each part of three bottles, affixed label bearing No. 178/ MBNR/D1/22978/1999 to each part of the sample, sealed the ends as well as each bottle caps after fastening with twine thread with sealing wax and official seal covering on knots and each sample bottles are wrapped on thick brown paper separately, folded neatly and pasted the ends with gum, pasted the paper slip to each part from bottom to top and top to bottom with twine thread sealed four sides, one on top, one on bottom and one each both sides covering on knots. A1, LW-1, LW-3 panch witness and LW-4 panch witness signed on each sample bottle, drafted the panchanama in English on behalf of panch witnesses. Contents of the panchanama were read over and explained to A1, LW-3 and LW-4. After collecting the samples in the above manner, on 22.03.1999 one part of the sample was sent to Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad, under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority. A sealed cover memorandum in Form-VI with specimen impression of seal used to seal the said sample was sent separately in person through Anjaiah, Attender. The remaining two parts of the samples were deposited with the Director, IPM, PH Labs and Local (Health) Authority. On the basis of purchase bill produced by the Accused No. 1 and as per label declaration of manufacturer firm, notice in Form-VI was sent to M/s. Bharath Coca Cola Bottling South East Private Limited, Mahanandi, Cross Roads, Gajulapalli, Kurnool District. After causing analysis of the said sample, the Public Analyst delivered the report in Form-III bearing No. 252/99, dated 26.04.1999 along with covering letter bearing No. 576/SFI/99, dated 28.04.1999. The Public Analyst opined that the sample contained moulds beyond the permissible limits and is therefore adulterated. In view thereof, the Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine, P.H. Labs and Local (Health) Authority, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, accorded written consent under Section 20(1) of the Act, 1954 read with G.O.Ms. No. 62, Medical and Health dated 30.01.1985 and directed LW-2 to launch prosecution against Accused 1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 16(1)(a), 7(i) and 2 (ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Charge sheet was filed to this extent. The trial Court took cognizance for the above offences.

4. When the accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code, the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. As NBW against A3 and A4 were pending, the case against them was split up and numbered as C.C. No. 152 of 2008 and the trial wa