HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 409 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (4) (5) and (1) of Cr.P.C. by the State, challenging the judgment, dated 24.03.2008 passed in C.C.No.399 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chinnur, wherein the accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in C.C.
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the accused stocked the adulterated sugar for the purpose of sale to the customers, which is injurious to health.
On appearance of the accused, the material was perused and on being satisfied, charge under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material available on record, but the same was 2 denied by the accused. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the accused.
After analyzing the evidence available on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Challenging the same the appeal is filed by the State.
Heard both sides and perused the record.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State contended that the judgment of the trial Court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that the trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective.
Sri Venkateswar Varanasi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would submit that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the accused was rightly acquitted by the trial Court.
The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the trial court committed serious and substantial error in acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Food Adulteration Act and whether the order of acquittal is to be reversed.
As seen from the impugned judgment, the trial Court gave a finding that the shop of the accused is a sweet shop and he does not sell the sugar. P.W.1, who is the Food Inspector, admitted that the sugar was not meant for sale in the shop of accused and 3 he used the sugar along with other ingredients such as maida, oil and other materials. No prudent sweet shop owner would like to use the adulterated sugar containing iron fillings for manufacturing the sweets to be sold by him to the customer. In the present case, the accused is not even a retail vendor of the sugar and he only purchases the sugar in small quantity from the retailers for the purpose of using the same for manufacturing sweets. If the adulterated sugar is found in the shop of the accused, it cannot be said that the accused stocked the adulterated sugar for sale since no prudent sweet shop owner would like to use the adulterated sugar containing iron fillings for manufacturing the sweets.
Further, it is well settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if there is any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the findings of the lower Court. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is pointing towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusal of the record and the judgment of the trial Court, this 4 Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 24.03.2008 passed in C.C.No.399 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chinnur.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 12.02.2021 gkv