MARIDU SREENIVAS Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case, under Ss. 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner/accused, challenging the judgment, dtd. 9/3/2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2007 by the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under ST/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge Medak at Sangareddy, whereby, the Court below, while setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused of the offence under Sec. 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'PFA Act'), vide order, dtd. 18/10/2007, passed in C.C.No.206 of 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court) at Sangareddy, reduced the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year imposed by the trial Court to rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of PFA Act, while maintaining the fine and the default sentence for the said offence.

(2.) I have heard Mr.Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and perused the record.

(3.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26/11/2004, PW.1/Food Inspector visited M/s.Sri Sairam Milk, Fancy, Kirana and General Stores situated at D.No.23-16, Vinayak Nagar, Ramachandrapuram, Medak District, along with his attender. The petitioner/accused was transacting business at that time. On enquiry, the petitioner/accused disclosed that he is the proprietor of the said shop and he is dealing with selling of all varieties of milk sachets and kirana items to the public for human consumption. PW.1 disclosed his identify, secured the presence of PW.2/Arepally Murali to act as mediator for inspection and sampling work, inspected the shop in the presence of PW.2 and noticed 30 Kgs of redgram dhal stocked in an open gunny bag. The petitioner/accused disclosed that the said redgram dhal was purchased from Hyderabad and kept in the shop premises for sale to public for human consumption and failed to furnish the purchase particulars of redgram dhal. Then, PW.1 examined redgram dhal and did not find any insect or infestation and suspecting as adulterated for having excess weevilled grains, purchased 1500 grams of redgram dhal for the purpose of sending it for analysis and paid its cost of Rs.48.00 to the petitioner/accused and obtained cash receipt from him and served Form VI notice on the petitioner/accused informing that the purchased sample will be sent to public analyst for analysis and obtained acknowledgement on the office copy of Form VI notice which was attested by PW.2. PW.1 divided the purchased 1500 grams of redgram dhal into three equal parts and each part was poured into three clean, dry and empty plastic tins and closed the mouths of tins with caps tightly and tied with thread and sealed. Then, label bearing Code No.MDK/Dl/15539/2004 was pasted on each sample tin and again, each sample container separately wrapped in a thick brown paper and the ends were neatly folded inside and pasted with gum. Then a paper slip bearing Code No.MDK/Dl and Sl.No.15539/2004 was pasted to each sample and finally, each sample tin was separately tied with strong thread both above and across and put wax seals. PW.1 drafted a mediator report for the entire procedure of lifting of sample at the place of inspection in the presence of the petitioner/accused and PW.2 and the same was read over and explained and obtained their attestation on the report. On 27/11/2004, one part of the sample along with a copy of Form VII having specimen impression seal of PW.1 was sent to Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad, under registered parcel vide postal receipt No.5752, dtd. 27/11/2004. Two other parts of sample along with two copies of Form VII having specimen impression seal of PW.1 was sent to the Assistant Food Controller, Zone VI and Local (Health) Authority, Hyderabad. The sample sent to the public analyst has been analyzed and the Public Analyst issued report in Form III, vide Analyst Report No.864/2004 along with covering letter addressed to Assistant Food Controller, Z VI and Local (Health) Authority, Hyderabad, and the same has been forwarded to the office of PW.1. The Public Analyst opined that the sample contains synthetic colour Tartrazine and as such, it is adulterated. A detailed report was submitted to the State Food (Health) Authority in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 20(1) of PFA Act read with G.O.Ms.No.62, M and H, dtd. 30/1/1985, and in the public interest, accorded written consent for institution of prosecution for the offence committed by the petitioner/accused under PFA Act and Rules, for sale of adulterated redgram dhal.