ORDER : V. Srinivas, J. Assailing the judgment dated 01.11.2010 in Crl.A.No.56 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Ongole, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the judgment dated 14.05.2009 in C.C.No.139 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Parchur, 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”), the petitioners/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). 2. The revision case was admitted on 11.11.2010 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3079 of 2010. 3. The shorn of prosecution case is that : (i). The accused being proprietor of M/s.Ghan Backery and Tea Stall (Manufacturing Unit) at Inkollu, is selling adulterated Bakery Biscuits. On 15.02.2006 at about 02.30 p.m., the complainant along with his attender visited the said manufacturing unit in the presence of accused. During inspection, P.W.1 suspected the quality of said biscuits of twenty packets to be adulterated, purchased nine hundred grams of biscuits from two packets of Rs.24/- and obtained Ex.P.3 cash receipt and also served copy of Ex.P.4 form VI notice. Then the nine hundred(900) grams of Bakery Biscuits was equally divided into three parts i.e., three hundred grams, kept each part in a thick white polythene cover and again kept each part into a clean dry empty plastic container and closed the mouths with lids and affixed a label bearing code and serial No.ZIII/PKM/DI/21897/2006 on each sample. Each sample container was wrapped in a thick brown paper and the ends were neatly folded and affixed with gum and obtained signatures of accused and L.W.2-Shaik Jilani on each sample under the cover of Ex.P.6 Panchanama. (ii). On 16.02.2006, P.W.1 sent one part of sample along with Ex.P.7 Form VII memorandum to the public analyst, Hyderabad under Exs.P.8 and P.9 postal receipts. On 28.03.2006, P.W.1 received, Ex.P.11 Public Analyst Report stating that the sample contains a non-permitted synthetic colour Metanil Yellow and is adulterated as per Section 2(ia)(j) of the PFA Act. (iii). (ii). On 16.02.2006, P.W.1 sent one part of sample along with Ex.P.7 Form VII memorandum to the public analyst, Hyderabad under Exs.P.8 and P.9 postal receipts. On 28.03.2006, P.W.1 received, Ex.P.11 Public Analyst Report stating that the sample contains a non-permitted synthetic colour Metanil Yellow and is adulterated as per Section 2(ia)(j) of the PFA Act. (iii). Thereafter, he sent a detained report along with photocopies of case documents to the Director and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad and obtained sanction orders to prosecute the petitioner and prepared complaint and filed the same before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Parchur. 4. The said complaint was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.139 of 2007 and before the trial Court, P.W.1, who is complainant, alone was examined and Exs.P.1 to P.17 were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner/accused. 5. 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 sentenced him to under undergo rigorous 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 (1) month. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.56 of 2009, before the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Ongole and the said appeal was dismissed, vide judgment dated 01.11.2010, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 7. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 8. Heard Smt. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 9. 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?” 10. 9. 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?” 10. Smt. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that as per the prosecution version the sample was kept in a thick white polythene cover and again kept each part into clear, dry and empty plastic container and closed the mouth with lid; that as per the public analyst report, the sample said to be received in a polythene cover kept in a plastic container, thereby, there is blatant error of non-compliance of Rule 14 of PFA Act; 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; that in the case on hand, the public analyst report was received on 28.03.2006, whereas submitted the same on 02.01.2008, thereby, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt. In support of the above contentions, she 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).] 11. Per contra, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State submits that P.W.1 after conducing inspection of manufacturing unit of accused in the presence of L.W.2 and accused, seized the said biscuits; that in their presence sealed the same in a polythene cover and kept in a clean, dry empty plastic container 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. 12. 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.2 kept the sample in a thick polythene cover and again kept each part into a clean, dry and empty plastic container and closed the mouths with lid. 12. 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.2 kept the sample in a thick polythene cover and again kept each part into a clean, dry and empty plastic container and closed the mouths with lid. Even as per the public analyst report the biscuits received in a polythene cover kept in a plastic container. 13. Now, it is relevant to refer Rule 14 of PFA Rules 1955, which reads that : “14. Manner of sending sample for analysis:- Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed” 14. Coming to the present case on hand, as stated supra, the sample was kept in thick white polythene Cover, which cannot be called as bottle or jars as per the mandate, and then kept in clean, dry, and empty plastic container. That itself shows there is every possibility of moisture, which rises to adulteration of subject food, nothing but violation of mandatory rule under the Act by P.W.1. Even on perusal of entire testimony of P.W.1 or the complaint, it is not explained the condition of said polythene cover, in which the subject food was placed for analysis whether it was in a clean and moisture free condition or not. 15. 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” 16. 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” 16. 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. 17. In the instant case, the public analyst report was said to be received on 28.03.2006 and submitted the sample before the Magistrate concerned on 02.01.2008, that is about 22 months later, analyst report was sent to Magistrate, which shows it is the gross violations of Section 11(4) of the PFA Act. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 20. 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. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused, vide judgment dated 14.05.2009 in C.C.No.139 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Parchur, confirmed by the judgment dated 01.11.2010 in Crl.A.No.56 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge at Ongole, 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(i-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 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.