APHC010283842008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1008/2008 Between: J. CHINNA VEERESH,, S/O J.RAMACHANDER, BUSINESS, URUKUNDA VILLAGE, KOWTHALAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2008 12/02/2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1008 of 2008 ORDER: The Revision was preferred under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brievty ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) against the judgment in Crl.A.No.86 of 2007 and 87 of 2007 dated 03.07.2008 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, whereunder the Revisionist, being A1, was found guilty of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(1) – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and payment of a fine of Rs.1,000/- confirming the judgment in C.C.No.102 of 2006 dated 10.08.2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. A2-Shaik Jahangir Pasha, A3-Ms.DilbaharGaram Masala Company being represented by A-2 were also found guilty and sentenced by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 2. The facts in brief of the case of the prosecution are that on 22.03.2005 at about 3:10 P.M., Gazetted Food Inspector visited the shop which was run by A-1 under the name and style of ‘Veeresh Kirana Shop and Cool Drinks' situated on the main road, Urukunda village and found Dilbahar Haldi Power (for short 'powder') packets which were put for sale as food articles to public for human consumption. A-2 is the supplier and A-3 is a manufacturer of said powder. Based on suspicion, the Gazetted Food Inspector purchased six 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2008 12/02/2025 packets and followed the procedure laid down under ‘the Act’. Before completing the process under ‘the Act’, when the Gazetted Food Inspector ensured with A-1 whether he possessed any bill relating to the purchase of the powder, he replied in negative; as such panchanama was prepared. Subsequently, samples of powder were sent to the State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad, and in the report the analyst opined that the sample of the powder contains rice starch and therefore, powder was adulterated. As there was no response from A-3/manufacturer to the notice as well as the reminder sent under Section 14 (a) of ‘the Act’, the accused were prosecuted. After considering the evidence of both the parties, A-1, and A-2 representing A- 3/manufacturer were found guilty of the offence and were convicted under Section 248 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- each as fine in default to suffer further imprisonment for 15 days. 3. The Revisionist/A-1, who is a trader had preferred Criminal Appeal No.86 of 2007 and A-3 who is a manufacturer represented by A-2/licensee had preferred Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2007 before learned II Additional Sessions, Kurnool at Adoni. The Appellate Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court. It confirmed conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court by observing that the prosecution had proved the necessary ingredients of the provisions of ‘the Act’. It was held that the limit of starch prescribed under the Rules of ‘the Act’ relating to turmeric powder can be up to 60% of the total 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2008 12/02/2025 weight of a product foreign to the turmeric and haldi is a traditional condiment used in every home and cannot be allowed to add 60% of starch. It is further held that the starch referred therein is the starch of the same haldi but not foreign. Therefore, the powder was termed adulterated. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues that the judgments of Appellate Court and Trial Court are bad in law and contrary to the evidence on record; the Appellate Court grossly erred in dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the judgment of the Trial Court passed convicting the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of ‘the Act’; both Courts ought to have seen that the Petitioner is a retailer and he is neither dealer/agent nor manufacturer of alleged adulterated product; both the Courts ought to have considered that the petitioner had no nexus with the manufacturing of the alleged adulterated product and he had no knowledge of alleged adulteration; both the Courts ought to have seen that there was no independent witness to support the prosecution case and except the evidence of P.W.1; and there is no other evidence on record to convicting the Petitioner; both Courts ought to have seen that admittedly the alleged adulterated product is supplied by the Accused No.1 to the Petitioner and as on the date of alleged purchase by the P.W.1, the product was in sealed cover as supplied by the Accused No.2. Hence, the Petitioner cannot be made liable for the alleged adulteration. 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2008 12/02/2025 5. The learned Counsel for the Revisionist submitted that this Court in Crl.R.C.No.990 of 2008 on 04.09.2022 allowed the Revision, on merits, filed by A2-Shaik Jahangir Pasha, A3-Ms. Dilbahar Garam Masala Company, on the ground that turmeric (Haldi Powder) should confirm to the standard of total starch not more than 60.0% by weight, and therefore requested to allow this Revision also on the principle of parity. 6. Mr.K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the Revision may be disposed of as per the earlier decision of this Court on the principle of parity. 7. Now the point for consideration is, whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.86 of 2007 dated 03.07.2008, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief? 8. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Dhanraj Jaiswal v. State of M.P in Criminal Revision Case No.103 of 2002 dated 05.04.2006 allowed the Revision setting aside the judgment observing that microscopic test in respect of sample chilies is not provided therein which is not provided by the legislature. Such test is an unreasonable test and conviction for the offence under Section 7 r/w Section 16 of ‘the Act’ was unsustainable. 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2008 12/02/2025 9. Now, for better appreciation of the facts of the case it is necessary to extract the prescribed standards that are shown in A.05.20.01 of the Rules, which is as under: "A 05.20.01 – TURMERIC (Haldi) POWDER means the powder obtained by grinding the dried rhizomes or bulbous roots of the plant of Curcuma longa L. It shall be free from artificial colouring matter. The powder shall conform to the following standards:- Moisture .....Not more than 13.0 per cent by weight. Total ash ...... Not more than 9.0 per cent by weight. Ash insoluble.. Not more than 1.5 per cent by weight. in dilute HCI Test for lead chromate ... Negative Total starch...... Not more than 60.0 per cent by weight." 10. In this case, as seen from the SFL Report (Ex.P13) the prescribed standard as per A Item A.05.20.01 of Appendix B, the total starch contained by weight should not be more than 60%. Admittedly, the total starch content by weight was only 45.62%. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajmir Singh v. State of Haryana1 held that the principle of parity in criminal case is that, where the case of the accused is similar in all respects as that of the co-accused then the benefit extended to one accused should be extended to the co-accused. Admittedly, this Court in Crl.R.C.No.990 of 2008 on 04.09.2022 allowed the Revision on merits filed by A2-Shaik Jahangir Pasha, A3-Ms. Dilbahar Garam Masala Company, on the ground that turmeric (Haldi Powder) should confirm to the standard of total 1 2010 (3) SCC 746 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2008 12/02/2025 starch not more than 60.0% by weight, and therefore this Revision has to be allowed on the principle of parity. 12. Indeed, if total weight of starch is 45.62% which is far less than the permissible starch standards, the learned counsel for the Petitioner was right in contending that the offence was not made out. The learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court committed material error in holding the Revisionist as guilty. The findings about the guilt of the accused by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court are liable to be interfered and set aside. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni in Crl.A.No.86 of 2007 dated 03.07.2008, consequently, the judgment in C.C.No.102 of 2006 dated 10.08.2007 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni is set aside. The Revisionist – A1 is acquitted for the offence under Section 16(1) of ‘the Act’. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 12.02.2025 VTS