Telangana High Court
The Food Inspector, vs Soma Satyanarayana on 20 September, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1344 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State questioning the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 7(i) & (v) and 2 (ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (for short 'the Act') vide judgment in CC No.528 of 2001 dated 30.03.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda.
2. The case of P.W.1, who is the Food Inspector is that he visited the premises of M/s.Kankaparameshwari Traders at Angadi Bazaar of Haliya, Anumala Mandal, in which the accused was transacting the business. In the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3, samples of groundnut oil were picked up and sent for analysis. The other formalities of sampling were followed.
3. The said samples which were sent for analysis were sent back by the Public Analyst with opinion that the oil was adulterated with Palmolive oil. Notice was sent under Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused. Since the accused requested that the sample should be 2 sent to the Central Food Laboratory, the same was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. The Central Food Laboratory analysed the second sample and issued the report stating that in its opinion that the sample of the ground nut oil was adulterated with Palmolive oil. Complaint was filed by P.W.1 during inspection. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P22 were marked in support of the case.
4. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the following grounds:
i) Sampling was done for both groundnut oil and Palmolive oil.
However, what happened to the Palmolive sample is not stated by P.W.1.
ii) The fact of taking Palmolive oil sample was deliberately suppressed in the complaint.
iii) There is delay of one month in filing the complaint.
iv) There was a long delay in issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act.
3
v) In fact, P.W.1 admitted that he filed complaint against accused with a delay of 25 days after receiving Ex.P12 analysis report.
vi) The oil was stored for more than two years and it is acidic value would be changed.
vii) The sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory after two years and five months.
viii) Having admitted that the acetic value would change after a period of two years, the accused was denied the opportunity of getting the sample tested within the time frame i.e., before the expiry date of the oil.
5. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of 1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 4 innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
6. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons"
for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 5
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
7. The grounds on which the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused calls for no interference since they are based on record. The ground raised by the Public Prosecutor that on technicalities, the cases cannot be dismissed is not acceptable. In cases such as this, when the opportunity to get the sample tested was denied due to the delay of nearly 2 years 5 months, prejudice is caused to the accused. I do not see any reason to interfere with the acquittal of the accused.
8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:20.09.2024 kvs