FOOD INSPECTOR GUNTUR Vs. BAVIRISETTY HANUMANTHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused was charged under sections 7(v), 2(ia) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in C.C. No. 92/90 on the file of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala. After full trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, State preferred this appeal.

(2.) The accused was acquitted of the charge inter alia for non-compliance of the mandatory provision under S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which ground is seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) As could be seen from the impugned judgment the notice under S. 13(2) was sent to the accused by the Director of Local Health Authority, Hyderabad, under Ex. P13. the prosecution only produced the postal receipt Ex. P12 evidencing despatch of Ex. P13 which is the notice under section 13(2) of the said Act. Considering Exs. P12 and P13 the lower Court found that though the prosecution proved the despatch of Ex. P13 it failed to prove service of Ex. P13 on the accused. The language employed under S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is that the report of Public Analyst shall be served on the accused 'in such manner as may be prescribed.' The manner prescribed is by registered post with acknowledgment due. Therefore, mere proof of despatch is not sufficient particularly when the accused denied having received the said notice. It may be possible in the ordinary course of events that the acknowledgment which is a small piece of paper, may be lost in transit. But the prosecution in fairness, should have taken minimum steps to summon the postal personnel to establish delivery of the registered cover containing S. 13(2) notice particularly when it relies on Exs. P13 which is the receipt of despatch of the cover containing notice under S. 13(2) of the said Act. This sort of minimum exercise to prove compliance of a mandatory provision is very much expected from the prosecuting agency. But unfortunately, the prosecuting agency did not do well in this behalf for the reasons best know to itself. Since the prosecution failed to prove compliance of a mandatory provision, the lower Court is quite justified in acquitting the accused on this ground also coupled with other grounds. I see no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the lower Court. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.