Telangana High Court
The Food Inspector, Rep., By The Public … vs Rambahal Sharma And Another on 21 August, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1248 of 2014
ORDER:
This criminal appeal has been filed aggrieved by
the judgment passed by the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Adilabad in C.C.
No.338 of 2010 (Old C.C. No.353 of 2010), dated
28.06.2011, whereunder respondent Nos.1 and 2,
who are accused Nos.1 and 2, were acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 16(1-A)(i) r/w 7(i)
and 2(ia)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. Heard Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri K.Uday Kumar,
learned counsel, representing Sri S.Surender Reddy,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on
24.09.2009 at about 4.00 P.M., the Food Inspector of
Division-I (LW-1), Adilabad District along with his
2
office subordinate visited the premises of M/s. Super
Quality, Door No. 1-511/59/A/18, Satnala Road,
Adilabad, for inspection. At that time A-1 transacting
the business and claimed himself as vendor and sales
man of the said shop. Lw-1 disclosed his identity to
A-1, on enquiry A-1 stated that A-2 is the proprietor
of said shop and at that time the proprietor was out
of station that’s why A-1 transacting the business.
Lw-1 informed A-1 the purpose of his visit and then
secured the presence of Lw-2 by name Tarbaz Ahmed
for which he accepted. Lw-1 inspected the above
premises in their presence and found a stock of
Maida along with other items Vanaspathi etc.,
approximately of 30 Kgs in a plastic drum. On
enquiry A-1 stated that it is Maida, kept to prepare
bakery items and sale for human consumption and
stated that he do not have the purchase bill. The
Food Inspector suspected the said Maida (infested)
and with an intention to lift sample of the same for
analysis purpose, purchased 1500 grams from the
3
said stock by paying Rs. 45/- and obtained cash
receipt from A-1 and then immediately issued and
served Form-VI notice on A-1 informing that the said
purchased sample of Maida will be sent to the Public
Analyst, Hyderabad for analysis and obtained
acknowledgement. Further Lw-1 divided the said
purchased Maida into three equal parts, each sample
was poured in three dry clean and empty plastic
containers separately, fixed caps to each sample
container and sealed properly. A label bearing No.
ZV/ADB/3184/2009 was pasted to each container.
The each sample container was separately warped in
a fairly thick brown paper, ends are neatly folded
inside and pasted with gum. A paper slip signed and
issued by the Local (health) authority, Zone-V,
Warangal, bearing code No. and Sl.No.
ZV/ADB/3184/2009 was pasted to each sample
container around from bottom to top and obtained
the signature of A-1 on each sample container in
such a manner that the paper slip and the brown
4
paper wrapper both carry a part of signature. Lw-1
further secured each sample container with strong
twine both above and across and affixed four seals to
each sample container on distinct places covering the
knots of twin i.e. 1 on top, 1 at the bottom and 2 on
either side of the body of each sample container by
using specimen impression seal. LW-1 drafted
panchanama, read over the contents to A-1 and LW-2
in Hindi and English and obtained their signatures,
sent the samples for Public Analyst and the Public
Analyst opined that the sample is insect infested and
it is therefore, adulterated. Thus, the accused Nos.1
and 2 have committed an offence punishable under
Section 16(1-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 for violation of Section 7(i),
2(ia)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954.
4. On behalf of prosecution before the Court below,
PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P1 to P21 were
marked. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were
5
examined and no documents were marked. The trial
Court after taking into consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence on record and after hearing the
parties, acquitted respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the
offence punishable under Section 16(1-A)(i) r/w 7(i)
and 2(ia)(f) of the Act.
5. Aggrieved by the above said judgment the State
filed the present Appeal.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted
that the Court below without properly appreciating
the oral and documentary evidence on record
acquitted respondent Nos.1 and 2, though the
prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable
doubt. The Court below ought to have considered the
evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P1 to P.21.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that respondent
Nos.1 and 2 have not committed any offence and the
ingredients of Section 16(1-A)(i) r/w 7(i) and 2(ia)(f) of
6
the Act are not applicable and the Court below after
considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record and after hearing both the parties, passed the
impugned judgment and acquitted the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 by giving cogent findings. He further
submitted that PW-1 filed the complaint after lapse of
more than nine months from the date of alleged
inspection. The prosecution has not proved Ex.P14
Public Analyst Report by examining the concerned
Analyst and PW-2 also not supported the prosecution
case. There are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment passed by the Court below.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material
available on record, it reveals that basing upon the
complaint lodged by PW-1, the present case was taken
cognizance against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the
offence under Sections 16(1-A)(i) r/w 7(i) and 2(ia)(f) of
the Act by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Adilabad and numbered it as C.C. No.353 of 2010
7
and transferred to the Court of Special Judicial
Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Adilabad, where it
was re-numbered as C.C. No.338 of 2010.
9. The record further reveals that even according
to the prosecution, the alleged inspection was
conducted by the Food Inspector, Division-I, Adilabad
District on 24.09.2009. However, the complaint was
lodged after lapse of more than nine months,
especially relying upon Ex.P.14 Public Analyst Report,
dated 30.10.2009. In the cross-examination, PW-2
admitted that white worms and black beetles can be
separated from Mida powder at the time of putting the
Mida powder for preparing food articles. The specific
case of respondents is that they are not adulterated
Mida and they are using the same for preparation of
bakery items and they are not selling Mida in the
bakery. The Court below after evaluating the oral and
documentary evidence on record, specifically held
that the prosecution has failed to prove the
adulteration of food article/Mida flour kept in the
8
shop of accused No.2. The record further reveals that
PW-3, who is a panch witness, also turned hostile to
the case of prosecution and the prosecution has not
proved Ex.P14 Public Analyst Report by examining
the concerned Analyst. Thus, the Court below has
rightly acquitted the accused Nos.1 and 2 by giving
cogent findings. Hence, this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the findings given by the
Court below.
10. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 21.08.2025
pgp