The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Mulchand Devda,
2021 Latest Caselaw 413 Tel

                  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

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

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

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