ORDER: The Court made the following: Assailing the judgment dated 12.03.2012 in Crl.A.No.15 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the judgment dated 11.01.2010 in C.C.No.774 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru, for the charge under Section 7(i) and 2(ia)(i) punishable under Section 16(1-A)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the “PFA Act”) and Rule 23 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the “PFA Rules”), the petitioners/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 14.03.2012 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.682 of 2012. 3. The shorn of prosecution case is that: (i). On 16.04.2007 at about 10.40 a.m., P.W.1-Food Inspector, visited the Kirana premises of the petitioner and found an open polythene gunny bag containing approximately 20 Kgs. of dall, on enquiry he disclosed that it is read gran dall and kept for sale to the public for human consumption. (ii). Then P.W.1 purchased 1500 grams of said Red Gram dall by paying Rs.45/-, obtained Ex.P.2 cash receipt and issued Ex.P.3 Form-VI notice. P.W.1 divided the same into three equal parts and placed into three empty, clean and dry plastic bottles and each bottle capped, screwed, fastened and sealed as well obtained signature of the accused on each sample bottle. The public analyst opined under Ex.P.11 that the sample contain synthetic food colour Tartrazine and is therefore adulterated. (iii). On obtaining permission from Director and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad launched the prosecution against the accused. 4. The complaint was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.774 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru. (iii). On obtaining permission from Director and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad launched the prosecution against the accused. 4. The complaint was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.774 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the charge under Section 7(i) and 2(ia)(i) punishable under Section 16(1-A)(ii) of the PFA Act and Rules 23 and 29 of PFA Rules, 1955 and sentenced him to under undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.15 of 2010, before the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and the said appeal was dismissed, vide judgment dated 12.03.2012, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 7. Heard B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that prosecution failed to establish the method of packing of sample; that P.W.2, who said to be mediator, did not support the prosecution version; that the remaining two samples were not produced before the trial Court, thereby, no opportunity was given to the defence to examine the said sample bottles; that there is a violation of Section 11(4) of PFA Act by P.W.1 that any adulterant seized under Section 10(6) shall be produced before a Magistrate as soon as possible and in any case not later than seven days after receipt of the report of the public analyst, thereby, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt. In support of the above contentions, he relied on judgments of this Court in Food Inspector v. Gunturu Venkateswara Rao, MANU/AP/0794/2008 as well judgment in Gurram Subbarao v. State of A.P., Crl.R.C.No.982 of 2009 decided on 05.01.2024 (APHC0105779942009). 10. Per contra, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State submits that P.W.1 after conducing inspection to the shop of petitioner seized the red gram dall; that in their presence sealed the same in clean and dry plastic bottles and send the same to the public analyst after obtaining signatures from the accused, thereby, no adulteration was taken place while sending the sample to the analyst and prosecution categorically proved the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt, thereby, prays to dismiss the revision. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material on record. It is not in dispute as well as per the complaint P.W.1 kept the sample in a plastic bottle and then each bottle wrapped with a paper and ends are neatly folded by affixing with gum. But as per the public analyst report the red gram dall was received in a plastic container, which does not reflect the actual packing of the sample said to be sent by P.W.1. 12. Furthermore, another grave mistake committed by the prosecution is violation of Section 11(4) of the Act, which reads as follows: “An article of food seized under sub-section (4) of section 10, unless destroyed under sub-section (4A) of that section, and any adulterant seized under sub-section (6) of that section shall be produced before a Magistrate as soon as possible and in any case not later than seven days after the receipt of the report of the public analyst. Provided that if an application is made to the magistrate in this behalf by the person from whom any article of food has been seized, the magistrate shall by order in writing direct the food inspector to produce such article before him within such time as may be specified in the order” 13. It is clear from the above, which mandates that, any adulterant seized shall be produced before a Magistrate not later than seven days after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst 14. It is clear from the above, which mandates that, any adulterant seized shall be produced before a Magistrate not later than seven days after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst 14. In the instant case, even the inspection was said to be conducted on 16.04.2007, sample lifted on the same day and the analyst tested the sample on 24.04.2007, no sample was submitted before the Magistrate concerned not later than seven days as prescribed under the Act, which shows the gross violations of Section 11(4) of the PFA Act. 15. More so, this Court in plethora of pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner categorically observed regarding these facts and held that Section 11 (4) of the Act has to be followed mandatorily as well polythene bag or bottle cannot be called as a container. These two mandatory provisions were not followed by the complainant-Food Inspector, while seizing and sending the subject food for analysis. 16. The trial Court as well first Appellate Court failed to consider the above aspects and mechanically concluded the petitioner committed the offence. Neither the trial Court nor first Appellate Court discussed Section 11(4) of the Act and Rule 14 of the Rules and its compliance. When those mandatory rules are not followed, invariably it can be said that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. The Court cannot pass a conviction on the sole testimony of P.W.1, in the absence of compliance of mandatory provision and rule under the Act and the Court, while finding the guilt, should take care of whether all the mandatory sections and rules were followed by the complainant-Food Inspector or not. 17. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction rendered by the trial Court as confirmed by the first Appellate Court cannot be sustained. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is able to establish that both the trial Court as well first Appellate Court failed to consider the violation of mandatory provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act and Rule 14 of the Rules. Thereby, the present criminal revision case is liable to be considered. 18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Thereby, the present criminal revision case is liable to be considered. 18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused, vide judgment dated 11.01.2010 in C.C.No.774 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Eluru, confirmed by the judgment dated 12.03.2012 in Crl.A.No.15 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, are hereby set aside. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 7(i) and (2)(ia)(i) r/w. Section 16(1-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules 23 and 29 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The fine amount paid by the accused, if any, shall be refunded to him. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.