Point of Law : Delay on both counts is not attributable to the appellants and, therefore, the consequences thereof cannot work adversely to the interest of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

The accused, who was charged for the offences under Section 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter be referred as “the Act”, for brevity), was acquitted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet, through judgment in C.C.No.42 of 2003, dated 19.01.2006 and aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

2. Heard and gave due consideration to the submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Accused.

3. For the sake of convenience of discussion, the appellant would be referred hereinafter as the prosecution and the respondent as the Accused.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as could be culminated through the complaint, is that on 13.09.2002 at about 1-00 p.m., the Food Inspector of Medak District, accompanied by his Attender inspected M/s. Maheshwari Kirana and General Stores, which is located at Jogipet. At the time of the visit, the Accused was present and was transacting the business. The Food Inspector, during the course of inspection of the said shop, found 40 sealed Luna Sweet packets and suspecting them to be adulterated, he purchased 3 packets in the presence of the mediator (PW.3) and thereupon he served Form – VI Notice to the Accused.

5. The packets purchased were divided into 3 equal parts and were sealed and labelled, as required. A panchanama was prepared and it was attested by the Accused and the Attender, who accompanied the Food Inspector. On 16.09.2002 one part of the said sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. On the same day, a notice was issued under Form – C to the Manufacturer, but the said Manufacturer failed to give any reply. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was analyzed and the Public Analyst delivered his report on 17.10.2002. The Public Analyst opined that the sample does not conform to the standard of total dye content and it is, therefore, adulterated. A detailed report was submitted to the State Food (Health) Authority. The said authority accorded written consent for institution of prosecution against the Accused.

6. Subjecting the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.P-1 to P29 to scrutiny, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, acquitted the Accused.

7. The finding of the trial Court is assailed by the State on the following grounds :

1. The prosecution has made out its case by establishing the ingredients of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of the Act.

2. That the reasons assigned for acquittal of the Accused are erroneous and that the conclusion arrived at is unjustifiable.

3. Though the Accused was found to be selling the adulterated sweets, which were not fit for human consumption and as the same is confirmed by the Public Analyst through his report, the trial Court acquitted the Accused, which is not proper.

8. In the light of the said contentions, the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and applied the required principles of law for coming to a just conclusion with regard to the proof of guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

9. Submitting that the judgment of the trial Court is erroneous, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has contended that the Food Inspector of Medak District, inspected the shop of the Accused and seized the adulterated sweets, which were kept for sale and after following all the required formalities, the said sweets were sent for analysis and the Analyst gave a clear finding that the said sweets are adulterated and that the sample does not conform to the standard of total dye content and, therefore, a complaint was filed before the Court and during the course of trial, the prosecution examined the Food Inspector as PW.1, the Attender, who accompanied the Food Inspector as