ORDER : This is a Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’) on behalf of the petitioner, who is accused in Calendar Case No.47 of 2002, on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srungavarapukota (for short, ‘the trial Court’), and appellant in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2003 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’), with a prayer to revise the judgment, dated 24.07.2008, in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2003; where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner herein confirming the judgment, dated 08.09.2003, passed in C.C. No.47 of 2002 by the learned Magistrate, Srungavarapukota. 2. The petitioner faced trial in C.C. No.47 of 2002 under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) R/w. Section 7(v) and 2(ia)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the Food Adulteration Act’) R/w. Rules 23 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, ‘the PFA Rules’) and suffered conviction before the trial Court and further the Appeal filed by him before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram came to be dismissed. Having felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused in the Calendar Case, who was the unsuccessful appellant in the Criminal Appeal, approached this Court by way of this Criminal Revision Case. 3. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Food Inspector of Division – I, Vizianagaram filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging, in substance, that on 18.05.2001 at about 10:30 AM, the complainant (hereinafter referred to as Food Inspector) inspected the kirana shop of the accused, situated at the main road of Kottam Village, along with his Assistant-cum- Typist viz., R. Eswara Rao (PW.3). The accused was transacting business at the time of the inspection. The Food Inspector, in the shop of the accused, found kirana articles such as Rice, Spices, Dals, Edible Oils, Sago etc., which are kept for sale of human consumption. The Food Inspector, suspecting adulteration in sago, purchased 750 grams of sago from the shop of the accused by paying Rs.15/- in the presence of the Village Talayari (PW.2) and also PW.3. The Food Inspector, suspecting adulteration in sago, purchased 750 grams of sago from the shop of the accused by paying Rs.15/- in the presence of the Village Talayari (PW.2) and also PW.3. The accused passed a receipt after receiving the sale price. Then, the Food Inspector served Form-VI notice on the accused informing his intention of sending the sample to the Public Analyst, Hyderabad for the purpose of analysis. He divided the 750 grams of sago into three equal parts of 250 grams each and placed them in three clean, dry and empty plastic tins and closed them tightly with caps and sealed them. Then, the Food Inspector affixed labels bearing Code No.122/VZM/D-1 and Serial No.2022/2001 of Local (Health) Authority on each of the three plastic tins and affixed five seals with wax on each of the three plastic tins and then obtained signatures of the accused on the labels. Each sample was covered with thick cover paper and their ends were neatly folded in and pasted together with gum. Then, the paper slips containing signature, code number and serial number were pasted on each of the three plastic tins covering them from bottom to top and he obtained the signatures of the accused on each of three sample tins in such a manner that both paper slips and cover paper carry a part of signature of the accused. Then, each of three sample tins were fastened by means of strong twine both above and across the sample packets and then he affixed four seals with sealing wax on each packet covering the knots of the twine also (one seal on the top and another seal on the bottom and the remaining two seals on both sides of the sample plastic tins). Then, the Food Inspector asked the accused to disclose the source of supply of the said sago. The accused did not disclose the same. The Food Inspector drafted a mediators report there. On 19.05.2001, the Food Inspector sent one part of the sample along with a copy of Form-VII memorandum with specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet to the Public Analyst, AP, Hyderabad under acknowledgment to the Local (Health) Authority in a sealed packet for the purpose of analysis by registered parcel vide receipt No.5818, dated 19.05.2001. On 19.05.2001, the Food Inspector sent one part of the sample along with a copy of Form-VII memorandum with specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet to the Public Analyst, AP, Hyderabad under acknowledgment to the Local (Health) Authority in a sealed packet for the purpose of analysis by registered parcel vide receipt No.5818, dated 19.05.2001. On the same day, one more copy in Form-VII memorandum with specimen impression of the seal were sent to the Public Analyst, AP, Hyderabad in a sealed cover separately by registered post vide Receipt No.5250, dated 19.05.2001. The remaining two parts of the samples along with two copies of form-VII Memorandum were sent to the Local (Authority), Zone-I, Visakhapatnam in a sealed packet by registered parcel vide Receipt No.5817, dated 19.05.2001. On 21.06.2001, the Local (Health) Authority, Visakhapatnam, received Form-III report in quadruplicate from the Public Analyst, AP, Hyderabad. On 25.06.2001, the Food Inspector received Form-III report in triplicate from Local (Health) Authority, Visakhapatnam. The Public Analyst opined that the sample contains fluorescence matter and is therefore, adulterated. The Food Inspector, obtained sanction for prosecuting the accused from the Director of Public Health, Hyderabad and filed this case. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) R/w. Section 7(v) and 2(ia)(j) of the Food Adulteration Act R/w. Rules 23 and 29 of the PFA Rules. 5. The learned Magistrate, on going through the complaint and the supporting material, took cognizance of the case under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) R/w. Section 7(v) and 2(ia)(j) of the Food Adulteration Act R/w. Rules 23 and 29 of the PFA Rules and numbered it as C.C. No.47 of 2002. After appearance of the accused and after completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the accused was subjected to examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During course of trial on behalf of the complainant, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-24 were marked. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence adduced by the complainant and he denied the incriminating circumstances and reported no defence evidence. 7. 6. During course of trial on behalf of the complainant, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-24 were marked. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence adduced by the complainant and he denied the incriminating circumstances and reported no defence evidence. 7. The learned Magistrate, on hearing both sides and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) R/w. Section 7(v) and 2(ia)(j) of the Food Adulteration Act R/w. Rules 23 and 29 of the PFA Rules and after hearing the quantum of sentence, sentenced the accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. 8. Being aggrieved of the judgment of the trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2003 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram which came to be dismissed on merits on 24.07.2008. 9. As against the above, the unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 10. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment, dated 24.07.2008, in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with such judgment of the Appellate Judge? 11. POINT: Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that PW.2, the so called mahazar witness, did not support the case of the complainant. The evidence of PW.1 has no corroboration from the evidence of PW.2. Even the evidence of PW.1 has no corroboration from the evidence of PW.3, who was the Office Assistant of PW.1. PW.4, the so called Scientific Officer, did not follow the procedure prescribed in conducting the chemical analysis test of the so called sample. The complainant got marked Ex.P-11, the so called mahazarnama, which did not disclose that PW.2 was secured by the Food Inspector to act as mahazar witness. Even PW.1 did not depose properly in his chiefexamination that he secured the presence of PW.2 to act as mahazar witness. The complainant got marked Ex.P-11, the so called mahazarnama, which did not disclose that PW.2 was secured by the Food Inspector to act as mahazar witness. Even PW.1 did not depose properly in his chiefexamination that he secured the presence of PW.2 to act as mahazar witness. It is mandatory, according to Section 10(7) of the Food Adulteration Act, to call one or more persons to be present at the time when the Food Inspector proposes to lift samples from any shop. So, Section 10(7) of the Food Adulteration Act is violated. Apart from this, when the petitioner sought before the Court below to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, he was not given opportunity for sending the same to the Central Food Laboratory. So, he was deprived of valuable right to dispute the opinion of the Public Analyst. The trial Court knowing fully well that PW.2 did not support the case of the complainant, erroneously convicted the petitioner. PW.4, the Public Analyst did not depose that the food article is injurious to health. She deposed that she did not conduct chemical examination except examining the sample microscopically. Even she did not count the globules. Her report, that the globules containing fluorescence by 10%, is without any basis. When the petitioner got cited some decisions before the appellate Court, they were not appreciated properly. Both the Courts below erroneously subjected the revision petitioner to conviction and sentence as such the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. 12. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the complainant, sought to support the judgments of the Courts below on the ground that the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner rightly basing on the evidence available on record and the learned Appellate Judge also appreciated the evidence on record and dismissed the Criminal Appeal and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 13. The substance of the allegations in the complaint is that the accused was running a Kirana shop. On 18.05.2001, the Food Inspector inspected the Kirana shop of the petitioner and found articles such as Rice, Spices, Dals, Edible Oils and Sago etc., which were kept for sale of human consumption. He suspected adulteration in sago, purchased 750 grams of sago by following the procedure. On 18.05.2001, the Food Inspector inspected the Kirana shop of the petitioner and found articles such as Rice, Spices, Dals, Edible Oils and Sago etc., which were kept for sale of human consumption. He suspected adulteration in sago, purchased 750 grams of sago by following the procedure. So, the allegation is that the accused stored the sago meant for human consumption and ultimately the samples were found to be adulterated. 14. To bring home the guilt against the accused, complainant examined himself as PW.1, got examined PW.2, the so called mediator, PW.3, the Office Assistant and PW.4 the Public Analyst. 15. Insofar as the evidence of PW.1 is concerned, before the Court below, it was in detail speaking about the minute details. 16. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, the so called mediator, his evidence is that he is a Village Talayari. He knows the accused who is running a kirana shop. About two years ago, Food Inspector and his staff came to the shop of the accused. Food Inspector sent a word to him (PW.2) to come to the shop of the accused. Hence, he went there and sat outside the shop. Food Inspector went into the shop of the accused. He does not know whether the Food Inspector inspected food items therein. PW.1 came out from the shop and obtained his signatures on Exs.P-7, P-9 and P-11. PW.1 did not read over the contents of the same. The Assistant Public Prosecutor got declared PW.2 as hostile and cross-examined him. During the cross-examination, PW.2 denied that in his presence PW.1 lifted the samples and he is deposing false. 17. PW.3, Office Assistant, deposed that he accompanied along with PW.1 to the shop of accused for inspection relating to sago items and purchases thereto of PW.1 and lifting of samples and that the accused did not reveal the source of supply etc., 18. PW.4 is the Public Analyst, who deposed that on 22.05.2001, she received sample of Sago from Food Inspector, Division-I, Vizianagaram with code No.122/VZM/D-1 and Serial No.2022/2001 for analysis. She noticed the same on 04.06.2001 and dispatched the report on 18.06.2001. She opined that the sample contains fluorescent matter and therefore adulterated. Ex.P-17 is the report given by her. 19. Now, this Court would like to look into the defence of the accused before PW.1 at the time of cross-examination. She noticed the same on 04.06.2001 and dispatched the report on 18.06.2001. She opined that the sample contains fluorescent matter and therefore adulterated. Ex.P-17 is the report given by her. 19. Now, this Court would like to look into the defence of the accused before PW.1 at the time of cross-examination. He deposed in cross-examination that he did not mention in the mediators report that he called the mediators. He denied that he obtained the signature of LW.2 – Terapalli Bangarayya, since he is a government employee and will be under his control and denied that the sample tins are not clean and dry at the time of sampling and that the Health Authority gave sanction without application of mind. He denied that the variation in the standard, according to the analyst opinion, arose because he did not use the sample bottles with clean and dry and fluorescence arose due to improper sampling. 20. By virtue of above, the accused did not dispute the visit made by PWs.1 and 3 by securing the presence of PW.2. The defence of the accused is that PW.1 simply obtained the signature of PW.2 on the mediators report. So, the crucial defence of the revision petitioner before PW.1 is that as PW.1 did not follow proper sampling by using the clean and dry tins, the variation arose and due to improper sampling only fluorescence arose. 21. The above defence set forth before PW.1 is negatived by virtue of the answers elicited from the mouth of PW.4 during cross-examination. She deposed in cross-examination that there is no possibility of attaching fluorescence while transferring the sago globules from one container to another container and fluorescence is possible only at the time of manufacture. So, the defence set forth before PW.1 is negatived by virtue of the answers elicited during the course of cross-examination of PW.4. 22. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though Section 10(7) of the Food Adulteration Act mandates joining of the mediators but the contents in Ex.P-11 did not reveal the same. This Court has carefully looked into the aforesaid issue. 22. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though Section 10(7) of the Food Adulteration Act mandates joining of the mediators but the contents in Ex.P-11 did not reveal the same. This Court has carefully looked into the aforesaid issue. Admittedly, according to Section 10(7) of the Food Adulteration Act, where the Food Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6), he shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his/her signatures. In this regard, Ex.P-11 itself reads as it is a mediators report on the top of it. So, when Ex.P-11 is literally styled as a mediators report, there is no need to make any narration to the effect that PW.1 called the mediators. Apart from this, PW.1 categorically deposed in his chief-examination that he took the food articles in the presence of accused and LWs.2 and 3, who were called as mediators. When that is the situation, the contention of the petitioner that the evidence of PW.1 did not disclose he called for the mediators or that Ex.P-11 did not disclose that he called the mediators is not at all tenable. One cannot read between the sentences of depositions. The entire deposition of PW.1 and entire contents of Ex.P-11 are to be looked into. If they are looked into, it goes without saying that PW.1 secured the presence of PW.2 as mediator. It is altogether a different aspect that PW.2 did not support the case of the prosecution. As to whether the testimony of PWs.1 and 3 liable to be believed though PW.2 did not support the case is a matter to be discussed hereinafter. So the contention of the petitioner that Ex.P-11 did not disclose that PW.2 was secured as a mediator and evidence of PW.3 did not disclose the same is not tenable. 23. PW.2 exhibited hostility to the case of the prosecution. The contention of the petitioner is that PW.1 obtained the signature of PW.2 as he was a Government employee and as he was under his control. In my considered view, PW.2 was not under the control of PW.1. PW.2 was Talayari of the village, on whom PW.1 has no control. In fact, PW.2 has no necessity to simply sign on Ex.P-11 and other documents at the request of PW.1. In my considered view, PW.2 was not under the control of PW.1. PW.2 was Talayari of the village, on whom PW.1 has no control. In fact, PW.2 has no necessity to simply sign on Ex.P-11 and other documents at the request of PW.1. PW.2 admitted that he reached the shop of the accused and sat outside. Having considered the answers spoken by him and the outcome of crossexamination of PW.2, it is quite improbable to assume that PW.2, without witnessing anything signed Ex.P-11. So, simple because PW.2 turned hostile, the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 cannot be thrown out. If the evidence is convincing, complainant case can be believed. As seen from the evidence of PW.3, he corroborated the evidence of PW.1. PW.3 was the Office Assistant-cum-Typist. So, he testified the fact that he accompanied PW.1 along with PW.2 and PW.1 lifted sample of sago and forwarded the same to the Chemical Analyst etc., 24. Admittedly, it is a case where the accused made a request before the Court below to send his sample for chemical analysis, which was not accepted. Here, it is born out from the record that, according to Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act, limitation period is 10 days from the date of receipt of a report from complainant to file an application seeking to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. It appears that from the judgment of the appellate Court that he moved the learned Magistrate to forward his sample beyond the period of limitation and it was dismissed on the ground of delay. So, it cannot be held that accused was deprived of an opportunity to negative the Public Analyst opinion. Even before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner herein cited three decisions to contend that the time stipulated of 10 days to file an application is only directory in nature. This Court would like to make it clear that when the Court below dismissed the application of the accused on the ground of limitation, the remedies were elsewhere to challenge the legality of the said order, which was not done. Hence, at the stage of Appeal, his contention was not found to be tenable. Under the circumstances, the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard is tenable. Hence, at the stage of Appeal, his contention was not found to be tenable. Under the circumstances, the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard is tenable. The accused did not challenge the so called order passed by the learned Magistrate when his application under Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act was dismissed. Now, on that ground the appellant cannot contend that the judgment of the appellate Court is erroneous. 25. Turning to the evidence of PW.4, admittedly, she did not depose that the food article is injurious to health. Her evidence is categorical that though she did not conduct any chemical analysis test she performed only microscopical test. Her evidence in crossexamination is quietly convincing. She had clarified that there is no question of arising of fluorescence by contact and it must have been grown at the time of manufacture. So, it is the accused who elicited adverse answers to him in cross-examination of PW.4. According to her, the fluorescence count is of 10% and on the globules they should be absent as per the standard prescribed. 26. Having considered above, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence of PW.4 is fully convincing. The contention of the accused before PW.1 that there was presence of fluorescence because he did not follow the proper sampling was negatived by virtue of the evidence of PW.4 in her cross-examination. 27. The accused sought to support his contention before the learned Additional Sessions Judge by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1982 (SC) Crl. 221, wherein the description of the sample taken by the Food Inspector is in dispute. Hence, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it was necessary to conduct chemical analysis test including treatment of the ash in the sample with hydrochloric acid. The finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the above said decision is not applicable to the present case on hand is convincing. 28. Hence, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it was necessary to conduct chemical analysis test including treatment of the ash in the sample with hydrochloric acid. The finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the above said decision is not applicable to the present case on hand is convincing. 28. He also relied upon another decision of this Court in Kantheti Bhogeswara Rao v. State of A.P., 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 41 wherein two different opinions were given when the articles were forwarded to the State Laboratory and Central Laboratory and then this Court pointed out that analysts did not mention in their reports that the food article is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. The learned Additional Sessions Judge distinguished the same for giving finding that as per the standards prescribed under the PFA Rules, sago shall not contain any other colouring matter, which is prohibited under Rule 23 of the PFA Rules. The findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard are convincing. The accused also canvassed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that there was delay in furnishing the public analyst opinion which was not found favour by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He distinguished the facts in M/s. Ruchi Infrastructure Limited v. State of AP, 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 123, where there was delay of more than one and half years in producing the sample. 29. So, the contention of the revision petitioner that the public analyst opinion is vague is not tenable. Admittedly, under Rule A.03.02 of Appendix-B shows that ‘sago’ shall mean small hard globules or pearls made from either the starch of the sago palm or the tubers of Tapioca (Menihot Utilissima) and shall be free from any extraneous matter including natural colours. So, by virtue of the above, the petitioner cannot contend that there is no opinion that it is injurious to health. 30. A look at the evidence of PW.1 in view of defence of the accused before him in cross-examination shows that the evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged and there are no circumstances to disbelieve his evidence. PW.2 has no necessity to just to visit the shop of the accused and sit outside. So, purposefully he did not support the case of the complainant. However, PW.3 supported the evidence of PW.1. PW.2 has no necessity to just to visit the shop of the accused and sit outside. So, purposefully he did not support the case of the complainant. However, PW.3 supported the evidence of PW.1. PW.3 was not a technical person and it is sufficient to see that evidence of PW.1 on material aspects has corroboration from the evidence of PW.3. Even PW.3 was not supposed to speak about the sampling procedure spoken by PW.1 in detail. So, PW.3 deposed as regards the material facts such as lifting of samples by paying the sale price, separating the samples into three parts and packing with seals. 31. The accused did not dispute the signatures on exhibits that are marked by the complainant. Even it is not the defence of the accused that Food Inspector did not visit the shop and did not lift the samples. Under the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record. 32. In the light of the above, in my considered view the judgment, dated 24.07.2008, passed in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2003 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram cannot be said to be erroneous as it does not suffer with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 33. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 34. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court along with the lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before 12.12.2022 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioner in C.C. No.47 of 2002, dated 08.09.2003, and report compliance to this Court. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.