Page No.

CC No.74/2013
IN THE COURT OF THE I METROPOLTIAN MAGISTRATE (MUNICIPAL
COURT): HYDERABAD:

      Present: SMT. G. SABITHA,
                FAC.  I Metropolitan Magistrate,        
  Hyderabad.

Dated this the 14th day of September, 2018.

CALENDER CASE No.74 of 2013
                                    
Between:
The State represented by 
The Food Inspector,
Division­I, RR District,
attached to the 
Directorate of Institute of Preventive Medicine,
Public Health Lbs & Food (Health), Administration,
Narayanguda, Hyderabad.            …. Complainant

A N D 
 
Amaravadi Murali, S/o.A.Sattaiah,
aged 33 years, Vendor­cum­proprietor  and PFA,
Licensee of M/s. Anu Kiran & General Stores,
Kuntloor Road, Hayathnagar V&M,
RR District.    ...    Accused.

 
             This case is coming­up for hearing before me in the presence of learned
APP for the complainant and Sri. M.Surender Counsel for Accused and having
stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.       The   complainant   is   the   Food   Inspector   (In   short   F.I)/PW.1

Division­I   Ranga   Reddy   District,   attached   to   the   Directorate   of

Institute   of   Preventive   Medicine   (I.P.M),   Public   (Health)   Labs   and

Food   Health   Administration,   Government   of   Andhra   Pradesh,

Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

2.    The   complaint   is   filed   against   the   accused   for   selling

Adulterated Urad Dal Whole  which is an offence under section  2(ia)
Page No.2

CC No.74/2013
(m) and Sec.7 (i) of P.F.A. Act punishable under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of

P.F.A. Act,1954. (In short PFA Act).

   
3. On dt.7.10.2004, at about 5.15 p.m., Complainant/PW.1 along

with   his   attender   visited   M/s     Anu   Kirana   &   General   Stores,

Kuntloor   Road,   Hayathnagar   (V   &   M),   Ranga   Reddy   District,   for

inspection.     At   that   time,   accused   was   found   present   in   the   said

premises   and   transacting   the   business.   On   inquiry,   accused

disclosed   himself   as   proprietor   of   said   shop.     PW.1   disclosed   his

identity   to   the   accused.   Thereafter,   PW.1  secured  the   presence  of

independent   witness,   i.e,   LW.2   R.   Chandra   Mohan   Goud   and

inspected the shop of accused.   During inspection, PW.1 found 20

kgs of Udath Dall whole in an open polythene bag (No trade mark or

label found on the bag) apart from other food articles.  

4. On inquiry, accused disclosed that the said stock of Urad Dall

whole   is   meant   for   sale,   for   human   consumption,   but   did   not

disclose the source of supply of it.   On suspicion, PW.1 purchased

1500   grms   of   Udath   Dall   whole   from   the   above   said   stock,   paid

Rs.36/­ towards its cost, to the accused and obtained cash receipt

for the same.   PW.1 served form VI notice bearing Code No. & SL.

No. RRD/DI/15528/2004 showing his intention to send the Udath

Dall   whole,   for   analysis   and   obtained   acknowledgement   in   the

presence of LW.2.
Page No.3

CC No.74/2013

5. PW­1 divided the Udath Dall whole into three equal parts and

poured   into   three   separate   clean,   dry   and   empty   plastic   jars,

capped, fastened with twine and sealed them.  PW­1 pasted a label

bearing Code No. & Sl.No. RRD/DI/15528/2004 on each jar.  PW­1

wrapped each of the sample jars separately with a fair brown paper

and folded its ends neatly inside and pasted them with gum.  PW­1

pasted a paper slip from bottom to top, on each of the sample jars

bearing   Code   No.   Sl.   No.RRD/DI/15528/2004,   duly   signed   and

issued   by   the   Asst.   Food   Controller   &   Local   (Health)   Authority,

Zone­VI, Hyderabad.  

6. PW­1   obtained   the   signatures   of   the   Accused   and   LW­2,   on

each   of   the   sample   jars,   in   such   a   manner   that   the   signatures

carries both on the wrapper and paper slip.   PW­1 also signed on

each   of   the   above   mentioned   sample   jars,   in   the   above   similar

manner.   Then,  PW­1 further secured each sample jar with twine

above and across.  Then, PW­1 affixed four distinct seals one each of

the sample jars with his specimen impression seal, one on the top,

one at the bottom and two on both sides of the sample jars.  PW­1

drafted   a   panchanama   in   English   before   the   accused   and   LW­2,

read over and explained in Telugu and Hindi languages about the

contents of it.   Having satisfied to the explanation made by PW­1,

accused and LW­2 signed on panchanama, dt.7.10.2004. 
Page No.4

CC No.74/2013

7. On   the   next   working   day,   i.e.,   on   8.10.2004,   PW.1   sent   one

part   of   the   sample   jar,   bearing   code   no.   and   serial   no.

RRD/DI/15528/2004 along with a copy of memorandum in Form

No.VII   affixed   with   his   specimen   impression   seal,   to   the   public

analyst,   for   analysis,   in   sealed   package   under   intimation   to   the

Local   (Health)   Authority   Zone­VI   Hyderabad   and   a   copy   of

memorandum   in   form   No.VII   bearing   code   no.   and   serial   no.

RRD/D1/15528/2004   affixed   with   his   specimen   impression   seal

used   in   sealing   the   sample   jars   was   also   sent   separately   in   a

separate   sealed   cover   to   the   public  analyst   on   the  same  day   and

obtained acknowledgement.  The remaining two parts of the sample

along   with   two   separate   copies   of   memorandum   in   from   VII   in   a

sealed package was deposited with L.H.A., Zone­VI Hyderabad, on

the same day, ie., on 8.10.2004, for keeping for safe custody and

obtained   acknowledgement.     After   causing   analysis,   the   public

analyst   issued   report   bearing   No.627/2004,   dt.16.11.2004   along

with   covering   letter   B.   No.1930/SFL/2004,   dt.16.11.2004

addressing   to   the   Assistant   Food   Controller,   Local   (Health)

Authority, Zone­VI Hyderabad and opined that “the sample does not

confirm   to   the   standard   of   Mineral   Matter.   It   is   therefore,

adulterated”.       The   Assistant   Food   Controller   &   Local   (Health)

Authority, Zone­VI, Hyderabad sent public analyst report to PW­1.
Page No.5

CC No.74/2013

8. PW­.1   submitted   a   detailed   report   along   with   prescribed

proforma   (Annexure)   to   the   Director   and   Food   (Health)   Authority

Hyderabad,   along   with   connected   documents,   seeking   sanction

orders.

9. The Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine and State Food

(Health)   Authority,   AP,   Hyderabad   has   accorded   Written   Consent

Order, under Sec.20(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

for launching prosecution against the Accused in contravention of

Sec. 2(1a)(m) and Sec. 7(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,

1954,   for   sale   of   adulterated   Udhath     Dall   Whole,   which   is

punishable   under   Sec.   16(1)(i)   of   PFA   Act,   1954,   vide   Written

Consent Orders in Rc. No.10924/F3/2004, dt.7.3.2005.   On 28­7­

2005,   PW.1   filed   the   present   complaint   before   the   Court,

R.R.District.  Then, he informed the same to the L.H.A & Assistant

Food   Controller   Zone­VI   and   requested   them   to   issue   notice,

dt.27.09.2006,   under   sec   13(2)   of   P.F.A   Act,   to   the   accused.

Accordingly, Sri N. Prabhakar Reddy, Gazetted Food Inspector have

issued  said  notice,  dt.27.09.2006 along with analyst report.   But,

accused   did   not   choose   to   send   the   sample   to   Central   Food

Laboratory, for second opinion.
Page No.6

CC No.74/2013
 10.       On   appearance   of   accused,   copies   of   documents   were

furnished to him and he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

explaining the accusation levelled against him. Accused denied the

accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial,

the   Food   Inspector   examined   himself   as   PW.1   and   got   marked

Ex.P.1 to P.18. PW­1 filed memo saying that whereabouts of panch

witness,   i.e.,   LW.2   are   not   known.   Hence,   this   court   closed   the

evidence of LW.2. 

11.     After   the   closure   of   prosecution   evidence,   accused   was

examined   U/Sec   313   Cr.P.C,   explaining   about   the   incriminating

evidence   appearing   against   him,   for   which,   Accused   denied   and

reported no defence evidence. 

12.   Heard   the   arguments   of   APP   and   the   counsel   for   accused.

Counsel for defence filed written arguments on behalf of accused.

Now the point germane for determination is:­

1. Whether   prosecution   proved   the   guilt   of   accused   beyond

reasonable doubt? 

13. POINT:

Defence counsel argued that as per Rule 17(b) of PFA Rules,

1955,   sealed   containers   of  the remaining  two parts of the sample

and two copies of the memorandum in Form­VII shall be sent in a

sealed packet to the Local (Health) Authority.  As is admitted by PW­
Page No.7

CC No.74/2013
1, the remaining two samples were not received by the Local (Health)

Authority,   but,   by   an   authorized   person.     Though,   PW­1   had

deposed that the signature on Ex.P14 acknowledgement belongs to

an authorized person, no such document is filed before this Court.  

14.  More over, as per Rule 8(iv) of APPFA Rules, the Local (Health)

Authority shall compare the seal on the container and outer cover

with specimen impression and should note the conditions of the seal

thereon.   Admittedly, LHA did not record conditions of seal, in the

present case.  

15.  According to Rule 11 of APPFA Rules, the Food Inspector have

authority to do inspection within the local area, in respect of which,

he holds an office.  But, PW­1 did not file any record to show that he

holds office of Ranga Reddy District, Division­I. 

16.   It is the strenuous argument of the counsel for defence that

the   Food   Inspector­PW­1   did   not   mention   anything   about   the

homogeneous condition of containers in his panchanama, which is

must   and   necessary   as   per   PFA,   1954.     In   this   regard,   he   relied

upon the following citations of different High courts:­

1986(1)FAC pg.160 Panjab & Haryana High Court;

1991(2) FAC pg.50, Punjab & Haryana High Court; and 
Page No.8

CC No.74/2013
2009 FAJ 281(Del) Delhi High Court. 

 17.     1990(2) FAC 263(A.P)
 

 The gist of the judgment is that section 10(7) is mandatory and

further non­ production of panch witness is fatal to the prosecution

case.

18.   The     defence   counsel   further   argued   that   PW1   lifted   the

sample on 7.10.2004, served notice on accused, on 29.9.2006, i.e.,

after the gap of almost two years.  Due to delay, obviously, accused

was deprived of his valuable right to send the sample to the Central

Food Laboratory (for short CFL), for re­analysis and that prejudice

was caused to the accused.  Agreeing with the counsel for defence,

even if, the accused prefer an appeal to send the second sample to

CFL, the Uradh Dall Whole being food product, would not be in a fit

condition,   for   analysis.     Sec.   13(2)   notice   should   be   served   on

accused, after approaching the court, by way of complaint.   In the

instant case, the complaint is filed before the Court, on 29.7.2005.

Admittedly,   the   extraordinary   delay   of   9   months   22   days   is   not

explained by Pw­1.   With the above discussion, it can be hold that

delay   in   serving   Sec.   13(2)  notice  and   filing   complaint   before   this

Court definitely goes against the case of prosecution. 

 
Page No.9

CC No.74/2013
19.   The prime argument of defence is that Mineral Matter can be

used   on   Uradh   Dal   upto   an   extent   of   0.25   %.     Whereas,   as   per

Ex.P13 Analyst report, 0.79% of Mineral Matter was found on the

alleged sample.  As is admitted by PW­1, when Urad Dal should be

soaked   in   water   to   prepare   any   food   item,   the   effect   of   mineral

matter would be vanished. 

20.  Final limb of argument of defence is that on Ex.P15 annexure

of PW­1, it was mentioned that the manufacturer had used Mineral

matter on Uradh Dal whole.  Whereas, accused herein is the retailer

and   as   such   it   is   crystal   clear   that   accused   did   not   add   mineral

matter on alleged Urad Dall whole. 

21.                 With   the   above  discussion,   viewed   from  any  angle,

there is  no hesitation to hold that prosecution failed to prove guilt

of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

22.          In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences

under section 7(i) and 2(1a)(m) r/w sec. 16(1)(a) (i) of Prevention of

Food  Adulteration Act  1954, and the accused   is acquitted under

section 255(1) Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds of the accused shall be in

force for a period of 6 months from today, as prescribed under Sec.

437­A of Cr.P.C. 

Typed by me on my personal laptop, corrected by me and pronounced by me in
open court on the 14th day of September, 2018.
Page No.10

CC No.74/2013

FAC. I METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 
                                                          HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
  WITNESSESS EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution   Defense

PW­1: Sri.N.Pandu, Retired Asst.                 Nil                            
          Food Controller.

Ex.P.1 is  the  G.O.Ms.No.188, dated: 28­02­1991.

Ex.P.2 is the G.O.Ms.No.411, dated: 14­11­2000.

 Ex.P.3 is the Gazette notification No. 82, dated: 12­02­1985 showing issuance of GO
62, Medical Health Dt: 30­01­1985.

Ex.P.4 is the Gazette notification No. 330, Dt: 18­08­2004 showing issuance of GO 253,
Health Medical and Family Welfare (L­1) Dt: 16­08­2004.
 
Ex.P.5 is the cash Receipted: 07­10­2004..

Ex.P.6   is   the   copy   of   Form   VI   Notice   served   on   Accused   bearing   code   No.   &
Sl.No.RRD/D1/15528/2004.

Ex.P.7 is the copy of  the Label.

Ex.P.8 is the original panchanama dt: 07­10­2004

Ex.P.9 is the Copy of Form­VII Memorandum bearing code No. & Sl.No.
     RRD/D1/15528/2004, dt: 8­10­2004 affixed with the specimen impression seal.

Ex.P.10 is the acknowledgement buy analyst.

Ex.P.11 is the acknowledgement by analyst

Ex.P.12 is the covering letter No. 1930/FSL/2004, dt: 16­11­2004.

Ex.P.13 is the Public Analyst Report No. 627/2004, dt: 16­11­2004.

 Ex.P.14 is the letter showing depositing of two parts of samples before the
      local (Health) Authority dt: 08­10­2004.

 Ex.P.15 is the copy of detailed report dt: 03­12­2004 submitted to the
      director institute of  preventive medicine along with annexure.

Ex.P.16 is the Written Consent orders in Rc.No. 10924/F3/2004, dt: 07­03­2005.
 
Ex.P.17 is the notice U/sec 13(2) sent to the accused after launching prosecution and 
     case registered by the Hon’ble Court, dt: 27­09­2006, vide postal receipt No.RLADA 
     6002.
Page No.11

CC No.74/2013

Ex.P.18 is the acknowledgement from the accused for Ex.P.17.

EXHIBITS MARKED

                                                             FOR DEFENCE
  ­ NIL­

   MOs MARKED
  ­NIL­

                                
                                       

   
       FAC I METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
                        HYDERABAD.