Skip to content


The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderbad Vs. Gadamsetty Vudayavarulu Setty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1977CriLJ420
AppellantThe Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderbad
RespondentGadamsetty Vudayavarulu Setty
Excerpt:
- all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5..........preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the accused who was charged under the prevention of food adulteration act for having adulterated the chilly powder.2. it is not necessary to state the facts in this case. the trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that p.w. 1 who is stated to be the food inspector did not have the necessary qualifications as envisaged in rule 8 of the rules framed under the prevention of food adulteration act. the learned additional public prosecutor contends that the trial court fell into error in acquitting the accused simply because p.w. 1 did not have the necessary qualification to be a food inspector, because when once the court has taken cognizance of the offence under section 20 of the prevention of food adulteration act, the qualifications.....
Judgment:

Muktadar, J.

1. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the accused who was charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for having adulterated the Chilly Powder.

2. It is not necessary to state the facts in this case. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that P.W. 1 who is stated to be the Food Inspector did not have the necessary qualifications as envisaged in Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the trial Court fell into error in acquitting the accused simply because P.W. 1 did not have the necessary qualification to be a Food Inspector, because when once the court has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the qualifications of the Food Inspector are not material because the prosecution was launched on the basis of the Public Analyst's report which states that the sample that was sent to him was adulterated, I regret, I cannot accede to this contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the simple reason that Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act postulates the filing of a complaint by a person who is duly authorised by the Central Government or State Government or a local authority. Simply because the court took cognizance of the case on the basis of the complaint filed by the person authorised under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it does not mean that the accused has to be convicted on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, which would be an irregular one.

The probative value that has to be given to the report of the Public Analyst under subsection (5) of Section 18 of the said Act, which provides that 'any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst unless it has been superseded under Subsection (3) may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act', will lose its force when that report is obtained on the basis of samples which were taken by a person not coming within the ambit of the expression 'Food Inspector'. In order that the probative value given to the report of the Public Analyst is to be maintained the Food Inspector should possess the necessary qualifications under the rules and the samples will have to be taken in conformity with the provisions of the Act, and rules, and when the person taking the samples is not a Food Inspector, then the report given by the public analyst cannot have any evidentiary value. Therefore, to my mind, the lower court was correct in acquitting the accused. Hence there is no substance in this appeal It is therefore dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //