P SWAMY Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were tried in C.C. No. 197 of 1994 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalvakurthy, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for brevity "the Act"). Ultimately, the learned Magistrate found them guilty of the alleged offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 5-2-1997, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.21 of 1997 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, while dismissing it confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this criminal revision case.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28-9-1998, at 10.00 a.m., the complainant i.e., the Food Inspector, Mahbubnagar, Mahbubnagar District, along with the Attender, inspected the business premises i.e., toddy shop of A2. On suspicion that the toddy found in 24 bottles was adulterated, he purchased 1200 ML of it by paying the price and served notice in Form No.VI to A1, who was present in the shop at the time of inspection. Later, he divided the toddy into three equal parts and each part was placed into three clean and dry empty bottles whose mouths were closed with corks, tightly secured with twine thread and sealed. The paper slip which was issued by Local (Health) Authority, Mahbubnagar District with his signature was pasted on each sample bottle and the complainant obtained the signatures of the vendor and panch witnesses on each sample bottle and separately secured with twine thread above and across and put four wax seals on each bottle with his specimen impression seal. Panchanama as drafted in the presence of A1 and panch witnesses and their signatures were obtained on it. On 29-10-1993, the sealed container of one part of the samples along with Memorandum in Form VII was handed over to the Public Analyst by the Food Inspector. The sealed container of the remaining two parts of the samples and two copies of Memorandum in Form VII were handed over to the Local (Health) Authority. A copy of Memorandum in Form VII was handed over to the Public Analyst, who sent his report in Form No.III to the Local (Health) Authority concerned opining that the sample was not conforming to alcohol content, total acidity and volatile acidity, and therefore, it was adulterated.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.