Telangana High Court
Gone Praveen Rao, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 17 April, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1554 of 2011
O R D E R:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-
accused aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated
21.07.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2010 passed by the
learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short 'the
learned appellate Court'), confirming the Judgment of Conviction
and Sentence dated 12.10.2010 in C.C.No.838 of 2006 passed
by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mancherial (for short 'learned trial Court'). The offence alleged
against the petitioner-accused are under Section 16(1)(a)(ii)
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short
'the Act').
02. Heard Sri D.Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel,
representing Sri Anuganti Praneeth, learned counsel for the
petitioner-accused and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent. Perused the
record.
03. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he
being a Food Inspector, inspected the premises of
Annamaya Aqua Pure Water Plant, which belongs to the
petitioner-accused on 24.04.2006 at about 11:00 AM. The
petitioner-accused was selling the water for human
consumption. In the said inspection he found that the
petitioner-accused failed to obtain BIS Certification for
manufacturing of mineral drinking water. Thereafter, the
complainant obtained written consent from the Director, IPM,
Public Health Labs, Food and (Health) Authority, Hyderabad,
for launching prosecution against the petitioner-accused and
filed complaint before the learned trial Court.
04. The learned trial Court after conducting the trial,
convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused for the
alleged offence. Aggrieved the said Judgment of Conviction
and Sentence, the petitioner-accused preferred Criminal
Appeal before the learned appellate Court and the said
appeal was dismissed confirming the Judgment passed by
the learned trial Court.
05. Aggrieved by the said Judgment passed by the
learned appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Case
is preferred by the petitioner-accused.
06. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
petitioner-accused is nothing to do with the alleged offence.
The prosecution has not made out the ingredients for
constituting the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.
The complainant has no jurisdiction within the limits of
Mancherial Municipality. Except, PW1 no other witness was
examined by the prosecution. There is no element of food
adulteration in the present case. Hence, he prayed to set
aside the Judgments of learned trial Court as well as the
learned appellate Court by allowing this Criminal Revision
Case.
07. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State
submitted that the learned trial Court as well as learned
appellate Court have rightly considered the material on
record and passed the impugned Judgments and there are
no illegalities or irregularities in the said Judgments, for which
no interference of this Court is needed and prayed to dismiss this
Criminal Revision Case.
08. Both the learned trial Court as well as the learned
appellate Court have considered the oral and documentary
evidence available on record and came to a concurrent
conclusion that the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the
Act is made out against the petitioner-accused and
accordingly, convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused
for the said charge.
09. As seen from the entire record, PW1-
complainant-Food Inspector alone was examined before the
learned trial Court wherein it was stated that he conducted
panchanama marked under Ex.P5, in the presence of panch
witness. During the course of cross-examination, it was
admitted by PW1 that the copy of the said panchanama was
not supplied to the petitioner-accused. It is also clear from
the evidence of PW1 that one panch witness was present
while conducting the said panchanama, and at the time of
inspection there were three to four persons present.
10. On a careful perusal of the entire evidence of
PW1, there was no explanation forthcoming on whose
information he had inspected the premises of the petitioner-
accused. There is no seizure of samples by PW1. It is the
case of PW1 that he found 25 cans with 20 liters capacity with
mineral water in it. Then, there is no proper explanation
forthcoming from PW1 as to what prevented him from collecting
the samples of the said mineral water.
11. Even though the entire proceedings were
conducted in the presence panch witness, the said panch
witness was not examined before the learned trial Court. So
also, there is no proper explanation forthcoming from the
prosecution as to why the panch witness was not examined. The
evidence of an official witness alone may not be sufficient to
prove a crime, in the absence of evidence of panch witness,
particularly when the case is basing upon a panchanama, there
will be a reasonable doubt about the trustworthiness of the official
witness's testimony. While it is generally desirable for the
prosecution to examine all material witnesses, including panch
witnesses, the non-examination of a panch witness is always fatal
to the prosecution case.
12. It is not the case of the prosecution that the said
water is a contaminated or adulterated. There is no
evidence to show that the water do not meet the Standards
of BIS. There was no complaint from any person with regard
to the standards of the water being sold by the petitioner-
accused. Moreover, PW1 did not disclose as on whose
information he inspected the premises of the petitioner-
accused. There is no reliable information to PW1 for
conducting the inspection. That means, PW1 independently
conducted inspection in the premises of the petitioner-
accused. When, an inspection was conducted independently
by the complainant, the same shall be supported by the
panch witness to prove the panchanama prepared in
connection with the said inspection.
13. Be that as it may, ultimately, the discrepancy
found by PW1 was that BIS Certification was not obtained by
the petitioner-accused. The BIS Certification is required for
the manufacturing of the water. However, it is pertinent to
observe here that the petitioner-accused is not
manufacturing the water but he was selling the said water.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the firm opinion that the learned trial Court as well as the learned
appellate Court have failed to observe that the evidence of PW1
was not supported by cogent evidence of any independent
witness, which amount to gross irregularity on the part of the
prosecution. In that view of the matter, the concurrent findings
recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the learned
appellate Court are liable to be set aside.
15. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is
allowed setting aside the impugned Judgment dated
21.07.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2010 passed by the
learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, confirming the
Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 12.10.2010 in
C.C.No.838 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. Consequently, the
petitioner-accused is acquitted for the offence under Section
16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the petitioner-
accused.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if
any, shall stand closed.
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 17-APR-2025
KHRM
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
PD
JUDGMENT
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1554 of 2011
Date: 17 -APR-2025
KHRM
