1
APKD160003682018
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:
MYDUKUR.
Present:- Sri S.Khaja Moinuddin,
Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Mydukur.
Thursday this the 14th day of May, 2026
C.C.No.276 of 2018
Food Safety Officer, O/o Asst. Food Controller, Zone IV, Old RIMS, Kadapa.
….Complainant
Vs.
Shaik Khadar Basha, S/o S.Ghouse Peer, aged about 43 years, Proprietor of M/s Khadar Basha Banana, Repining chamber, Sivuni Manyam Street, Beside Medha Degree college, Mydukur, Kadapa District.
….Accused
This case coming on 07.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri S.Abdulla, Sri S.Kareemulla, Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The Food and Safety Officer, Kadapa has filed complaint against the sole accused herein for the offence punishable u/Secs. 3 (1) (zz) (iii) 26 (2) (i) r/w Regulation No.2.3.5 of Food safety and Standards (Prohibition &Restriction on sales) Regulations, 2011 of FSS Act 2006 punishable U/sec 59(i) of Food safety and standards Act with the following allegations:-
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on
On 15.04.2017 at about 10.00 AM, LW1/ T.Sekhar Reddy, Food Safety
Officer along with office subordinate G.Ramaiah, P.Seetha Ramaiah visited repining chamber of Accused for inspection. At that time, accused was present in the unit and doing business. Then LW.1 disclosed his identity as Food Safety 2 officer and called one Shaik Basha Vali. During inspection LW.1 found 100 crates, each create having 150 numbers of Bananas kept for repining for sale for human consumption. LW.1 ascertain from the accused that Banana were collected from farmers and kept for ripening and he is not having license under FSS Act 2006.
LW.1 suspected the bananas are unsafe as they may be treated with carbide for repining. LW.1 purchased about 20 No. Bananas from one of the crate and paid
Rs.60/- towards its cost and obtained cash receipt from the accused. Then LW.1 served Form V -A Notice to the accused disclosing his intention to take the sample of Bananas for sending analysis Food Analysist under FSS Act, 2006.
Then LW.1 divided the purchased bananas into four parts ie each part is having 5
No.of Banans and kept each part in each, dry and empyt wide mouth plastic bottles and tied with twine and affixed a label bearing code on each sample bottle. Then each sample bottle was wrapped separately in a thick brown paper and the ends were neatly folded in and affixed with gum. Then LW.1 further secured each sample bottle with twine both above and across and affixed their specimen impression seals with sealing wax duly covering the knotted end and obtained the signature of the Accused and LW.3 as per rules. LW.1 also given intimation letter to Accused regarding analysis of 4th part of sample by any one of the Acrredited Laboratories under the acknowledgment and he is not opted to send the 4th part under Rule. 2.4.1(10) (iii) of rules. LW.1 prepared a panchanama for the proceedings taken place in lifting sample and read over the contents of the panchanama to the accused the presence of LW.3 and the same was attested by them.
On same day LW.1 sent one part of sample along with Form VI memorandum with specimen impression seal and also a separate copy of Form VI memorandum in a sealed cover to the Food Analyst, Hyderabad vide postal receipt nos. ACA 411651215IN and ARN57135467 IN, dt.15.04.2017 respectively.
On the same day the other 2nd and 3rd and 4th part of samples were deposited with the Food Safety Designated Officer as per role 2.4.1 (10) (ii) and (iii) of Rules under acknowledgment. On 08.05.2017 the Asst. Food controller and
Designated officer, Kadapa received the Food Analysis report No.88/2017-18, 3
dated 05.05.2017 along with covering letter No.231/SFL/2017, dated 05.05.2017
In the report is opined that the sample is artificially ripened with carbide gas which is prohibited as per regulation 2.3.5 Food Safety & Standards. Hence it is unsafe.
On 12.05.2017 the report is communicated to accused along with letter
RC.No.12159/AFC/DO/KDP/2017, dated 09.05.2017 by register post vide postal
receiptm No.ARN561950688IN, dated 12.05.2017 for the purpose of appeal
U/saec.46 (4) of FSS Act, 2006. The Accused preferred an appeal under Section 46 (4) of FSS Act, 2006 sent one part of sample to referral food Laboratory, Pune for further analysis.
On 26.05.2017 the Asst. Food controller & Designted officer,
Kadapa forwarded the sample part of Bananas send to the Director, State Public
Health Laboratory, Punie in Form No. VI a letter No.12159/ZDO/ZIV/KDP/2017,
dated 26.05.2017 by register parcel and copy of sample in Form VI A Notice with
specimen impression seal with demand draft sent by registered post.
On 30.06.2017 the Asst. Food controller and designated officer, Kadapa received the Analaysis report from the referal food laboratory, Pune vide report
No.CFL/ DO-164/17/644/2017, dt. 05.06.2017 in respect of Banana bearing code
No.011/KDP/DII/12159/2017. The diector, Referral Laboratory, Pune said that the sample was in condition and is unfit for analysis. On 13.05.2017 the Asst. Food controller & Designated officer, Kadapa district submitted a interim detailed report along with xerox copies documents and annexure pertaining to sample of banana to the commissioner of food safety, AP, Gollapudi, Vijayawada for information. On 01.07.2017 the Asst. Food controller & Designated officer,
Kadapa has submitted final report to the commissioner of Food safety, AP,
Gollapudi, Vijayawada and requested to give permission to the Food safety officer, Kadapa district for filing complaint against the accused. Meanwhile Sri
K.Shankar, LW.2 deputed as Food safety officer, I/c Kadapa District. On 15.12.2017 LW.1 was handed over the entire case file to LW.2 for further proceedings. On 20.07.2017 the Asst. Food Controller & Designated officer, 4
Kadapa District received the letter R.C.No.712/F4/2017, dated 17.07.2017 from the commissioner of food Safety, AP, Gollapudi, Vijayawada wherein accorded sanction for launching prosecution against the accused for the offence committed
U/sec. 3 (1) (zz) (iii), 26 (2) (I) r/w Regulation, 2.3.5 of food safety and standards (Prohibition and Restriction on sales) Regulations, 2011 of FSS Act,2006 and punishable U/sec. 59 (i) of FSS Act, 2006. Thus the accused has committed an offence Under the above provisiion of FSS Act, 2006 and rules and regulations, 2011. Hence the complaint.
3. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable u/Secs. 3 (1) (zz) (iii) , 26 (2) (i) r/w Regulation No.2.3.5 of FSS (Prohibition and Restriction)
Regulations, 2011 of FSS Act, 2006 and punishable U/sec.59 (i) of FSS Act, 2006 against Accsued.
4. On appearance of accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.
5. The accused was examined U/sec.246 Cr.P.C. for the charge of offence u/Secs. 3 (1) (zz) (iii) 26 (2) (i) r/w Regulation No.2.3.5 of FSS (Prohibition and Restriction) Regulations, 2011 of FSS Act, 2006 Act, 2006 against the accsued was framed and read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW.3 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P.26 were marked.
7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.PC by explaining the incriminating material available against him for which he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.
8. Heard both sides.
5
9. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/Secs. 3 (1) (zz) (iii) (xii), 26 (2) (i) r/w regulation No.2.3.5 FSS (Prohibition and Restriction)
Regulations, 2011 of FSS Act, 2006 Act punishable U/sec, 59 (i) of FSS Act, 2006?
10. POINT:- The learned APP., argued that Accused sold the unsafe banana fruits and committed an offence under FSS Act and the evidence of PW.1 is supported by the analyst report which clearly goes to show that the accused committed the offence punishable Under FSS Act and hence, the accused are liable for punishment.
11. The learned counsel for the defence argued that, PW.1 who is
Food Safety Officer did not comply the mandatory provisions. PW.1 did not file original jurisdictional order, PW.3 admitted that he did not filed his Jurisdiction order and PW.2 who is alleged mediator is not the independent person who is the customer of that shop. The Food Inspector did not follow the mandatory provision Rule 2.3.5 in dividing the sample as he separated the same into four parts i.e., four dry clean and empty food grade container of plastic tin, each tin contains 5 bananas . PW.1 admitted that no document was produced to show the accused is the owner of the ripening chamber and no license records were seized and no ownership documents were collected. PW.1 further admitted that no
Ethephon or chemical substance was seized from the premises and no ripening agents was recovered and no instrument or material used for artificial ripening was seized. PW.1 admitted no seized sample tines were produced before this court. No material object was marked. He further argued that representative sample was not sent as per Rule 11.1 (c ). PW.1 admitted that not mentioned of commencement and conclusion time in panchanama and no temparature record maintained as required under Rule 2.4.5 (10) (iv) and storage register of sample preservation not produced and remaining 3 bananas samples were not recorded the preservation temparature condition, so that the accused preferred sample was return from analysist as it is unfit for testing due to detoriarated condition. In this case PW.3 who is the another food safety officer only took up the further investigation from PW.1 and filed complaint agaisnt the accused. The counsel for 6 the accused further argued that PW.1 has no right to inspect and lift the sample from the shop of accused and hence, the accused is entitled for clean acquittal as he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
12. On behalf of the prosecution case, the Food Safety Officer who is examined as PW.1 deposed in his chief examination that on 15.04.2017 at about 10.00 AM, he along with his office subordinate byname G.Ramaiah, P.Seetha
Ramaiah visited the banana repining chamber of Accused situated at
Sivunimanyam street, beside Medha degree colleger, Mydukur for inspection, at that time the accused was repining chamber and doing business. Then he enquired accused regarding FSSAI license and Accused did not shown any license from FSSA and further stated that Accused did not obtain license from concerned
FSSA authority. During his inspection he found 100 crates of bananas each crates containing 150 bananas were kept in repining chamber stored for sale for human consumption. Thereafter he suspect the quality of bananas repining with calcium carbonate.Then he purchased 20 banaans for Rs.60/- and obtained receipt from him,. Thereafter he served form V-A Notice to the accsued and the same was send for chemical analysis purpose to the state food laboratory authority,
Hyderabad. Thereafter he divided samples of banana in to four equal parts and placed into four clean dry and empty plastic tins, each tin contains 5 bananas and such tins are tightly closed the tins used with sealing wax. He affixed label.
He rapped with each sample tin with thick brown paper neatly and affixed paper slip and also obtained signature of Accused and LW.3. Then he served a notice under 2.4.1 (iii) of FSS rules, 2011. After that he prepared panchanama in the presence of Accused and LW.3 and obtained his signatures and Lw.3.
PW.1 further stated that on 15.04.2017, he send one part of sample along with copy of form VI memo containing impression seal sent to the food analysist,
Hyd for analysis by postal receipt. On the same day he send a separate copy of
Form VI memo containing impression seal send in a sealed cover to the food analysist, Hyd. On the same day he deposited the remaining three parts of samples and three copies of Form VI memorandums with impression seal deposited at designated officer under acknowledgment. On 09.05.2017, he 7 received the food analysis report bearing No.88/2017-18, dated 05.05.2017 along with covering letter No.231/SFL/2017, dated 05.05.2017. Ex.P.12 food analysis report discloses and opined that the sample is artificially ripened with carbine gas which is against the rules of FSS regulations act. On 09.05.2017, the Assistant
Food controller and designated officer, Kadapa District issued a notice U/sec. 46 (4) of FSS Act, 2006 to Accused along with Ex.P.12 report. On 13.05.2017 the
Assistant Food controller and designated officer, Kadapa District, send a interim detailed report along with annexure sent to the commissioner of Food safety,
Vijaywada. On 25.05.2017 Accused applied to the designated officer, Kadapa
District in Form VIII and requested to send one part of sample to the referral food laboratory, Pune for analysist and Assistant food controller accepted the requisition of Accused and send one part of sample to the director, state public health laboratory pune for analysis. Thereafter he handed over the case records to Smt. P.Yellamma Food Safety officer, Kadapa District.
13. PW.2 who is the punch witness did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. He simply deposed in his chief examination that on one day he went to Mydukur P.S. on his personal work in that on instruction of
Mydukur police he put his signature on written papers, but he do not know its contents. The signature shown in Ex.P3 to Ex.P7 is belongs to him , but he do not know its contents. The signature of PW.2 on Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 are marked as Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.22. PW.2 who acted as mediator at the time of sampling procedure, seizure, panchanama, but he catergorically stated that he do not know the accused and do not know the case facts and he did not signed in papers at police station after knowing contents. So in the absence of independent corrorboration the sole interested testimony of PW.1 is unsafe to rely upon.
14.PW.3/K.Shankar, Rtd. Asst. Food controller, Kadapa deposed in his evidence that he received entire case records from PW.1, after receiving the case records from PW.1 and after due verification of investigation done by PW.1 in this case, he took further course of action. He received certificate of analysis issued by the referal food laboratory, pune and also received proceeding from Assistant food controller, Kadapa, dated 01.07.2017. Further he received a letter addressed 8 by Assistant food controller, Kadapa to commissioner of Food safety Directorate,
dated 01.07.2017 and he also received a sanction proceedings of prosecute the
case against Accused before this court issued by the commissioner of food safety.
After completion of investigation he filed a complaint before this court against accused after due verification of investigation done by PW.1 under proper lines for taking appropriate action. Further offences U/sec. 3 (1) (zz) (iii), 26 (2) (i) r/w regulation No.2.3.5 of Food safety and standards (Prohibition and Restriction on sale) Regulation 2011 of FSS Act, 2006 penal section U/sec.59 (I) of FSS Act -2006.
In the cross examination of PW.3 by the defence counsel, he did not filed any of the record to show that as the accused is the owner of repining chamber and further he did not filed any of the records or documents or material objects as the accused used to repining of bananas which it was harmful for human consumption, before this court. He did not file orders before this court as he was acted as food safety authority. Further he denied other suggestions.
15. Perused the documents on record. The offences alleged against the accused are 3 (1) (zz), (iii), (xii), 26 (2) (i) r/w regulation No.2.3.5 of FSS regulation, 2011 of FSS Act 2006 punishable U/sec. 59 (i) of FSS Act 2006. The contention of the learned APP is that the complainant/ PW.1 purchased bananas from the Accused shop is unsafe and it is unsafe for human consumption and that bananas selling are the unsafe bananas. Hence, the accused is liable for punishment for the offences mentioned above.
As per section 3 (1) of Food Safety Standards Act 2006 (z): sale of unsafe Banana
Fruits.
As per (zz) of Section 3 (1): “Unsafe food” means an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health;
As per (zz) (iii) of Section 3 (1): By virtue of its unhygienic processing or the presence in that article of any harmful substance;
As per (zz) (iii) (xii) of Section 3 (1): By virtue of containing pesticides and other contaminants in excess of quantities specified by regulations.
9
16. The contention of the learned APP is that as per section 3 (1) (zz) (iii) (xii) unsafe bananas purchased by PW.1 was ripened with Carbide Gas and which is an insecticide listed in regulations 2.3.5 of FSS Regulations Act, 2011.
17. The learned counsel for accused argued that PW.1 who is Food
Safety Officer did not follow the mandatory provision of 2.3.5 of Food Safety and
Standards Regulations 2011 while sending the sample to the Food Analyst as the
Food Safety Officer sent 20 bananas, for analysis. As per 2.3.5 quantity of sample to be sent to the Food Analyst i.e., four parts of banana fruits and not a crates. Hence, they did not follow the mandatory provision while sending the sample to the analysis, due to Accused preferred sample was return from laboratory as the sending samples are deteriorated conditions, so that it was not fit for analysis, here the PW.1 and other authorities not preserve the samples safely as they did not follow mandatory provisions under FSS Act. As per the evidence of PW.1 he drawn 20 banana and divided into four parts and sent four tins containing each tin 5 bananas to the Analyst shows that PW.1 Food Safety
Officer did not follow the mandatory provision of food safety and regulation 2011 of 2.3.5.
18. The learned counsel for the defence further argued that except the evidence of PW.1 there is no supporting evidence to connect the accused with this case as PW.2 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.
Further PW.3 evidence is only receiving the documents or records from PW.1 after completion of procedure. The learned APP argued that the evidence of PW.1 is sufficient to connect the accused with this case though PW.2 did not support the case of the prosecution. A perusal of the record PW.2 is no other than the customer of the accused shop and the office subordinate G.Ramaiah, P.Seetha
Ramaiah who accompained with PW.1 is not examined by the prosecution and their evidence also did not adduce by the prosecution. PW.3 who is the food safety officer who took up the case records from PW.1.
10
18. This court relied upon a citation report in 2011 (1) FAC 358
Gujarat High Court wherein his lordship held that “The witness helper who has sealed the sample was not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the punch/ PW.3 witness has turned hostile”.
PW.1 in his cross examination deposed that he filed any of the specific orders before this court issued by the concerned authorities that he was appointed as Food Safety officer for the Jurisdiction of Kadapa District separately to conduct raids, but it is original copy is not filed except attested copy and admittedly he did not mentioned in Ex.P.7 when and what time the said panchanama was conducted. He did not file any of the documents before this court to ascertain the said accused is owner of repining chamber. Further admitted he did not seized the calcium carbonate at the premises of repining chamber of accused during his inspection. The Accused did not give any cash receipts of Ex.P.3. Further admittedly he did not follow the procedure while seized samples to kept in tins to note down the temperature time to time as per the procedure laid down in the food safety standard rules. Further he was admitted that he did not obtain the signatures of G.Ramaiah and
P.Seetharamaiah who accompanied with him at the time of conducting raids and he did not received any complaint against the accused in regard to the alleged allegation. Further the counsel for the Accused posed suggestion that Ex.P.5 ie;
Rule 2.4.8 is not as per standards of food safety standards Act and further suggested that as per Ex.P.12 is to be prescribed proforma of FSS Fule and suggested to PW.1 that as per Ex.P.12 report opinion that as not in the prescribed rules in FSS Rules, as mentioned in 2.3.5 and further suggested that he did not investigate and enquired the case as per the procedure laid down in FSS Act and
Rules. As per the evidence of PW.1 in his chief, his subordinate by name
G.Ramaiah,P.Seetha Ramaiah was also accompanied with him at the scene of offence but he was not cited as a witness however the authority mentioned above is aptly applicable to the present case on hand.
11
On persual of evidence of PW.1, PW.1 was not produced that the accused is the owner of the ripening chamber and no license of ripening banana business was produced and no ownership documents were produced before this court.
Prosecution failed to establish that the accused was owner of the bananas repining business as defined under the Act. Further PW.1 admitted that no substance was seized from the premises and no ripening agent was recovered and no instrument or material used for artificial ripening was seized at the scene of offence that it creates serious doubt regarding alleged artificial ripening. PW.1 in his evidence admitted that he was not seized produced sample tins before this court which it creates doubt as per the evidence of PW.1. Further PW.1 admitted that not mention the commencement and conclusion time in panchanama and no temparature record is maintained as required under Rule 2.4.1 (10) (IV) and storage register of sample preservation was not produced and samples were not dispatched on the same day. Though it was seized. Further PW.1 also not produced Form VII -A and same was not filed before this court. Though PW.1 taken samples on 15.04.2017 and though the bananas being perishable commodities, but in the absence of preservation record creates serious doubt about the reliability of analysis.
19. A perusal of the record, PW.1 filed government Order
No.742/FSSA/AP/2015, dt.05.06.2015 wherein the government appointed 13 members of Food Safety Officers for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh but PW.1 did not file a original copy of specific jurisdictional order of Kadapa District. The
Gazzette notification was not filed by PW.1 to show that he was appointed to act as Food Safety Officer to Kadapa District to show his territorial jurisdiction to purchase the sample from the shop of the accused located at Mydukur – Kadapa
District. Though Ex.P.2 is flled but it is a attested copy of work order only, but not a separate Gazzette on his name for this jurisdiction of Kadapa as in Ex.P.1. As per Section 37 of FSS Act 2006: The State Government may authorize any officer to the State Government having the qualifications prescribed under sub-section (1) to perform the functions of a Food Safety Officer within a specified jurisdiction. But the prosecution failed to file the said original proceedings/ 12
Gazzette authorization in this case for specified jurisdiction. Hence, the prosecution failed to follow the procedure laid down under FSS Act 2006 to some extent.
20. This court relied on a citation reported in 2020 (1) ALT (Crl.) 94 (SC) in a case between Vijendra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh wherein his lordship held that “When PW.3 who was claimed to be an independent witness has not supported the prosecution, the uncorroborated testimony of PW.1 can not be relied upon to sustain the conviction.”
21.The above authority is also aptly applicable to the present case on hand as PW.2 in this case did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. In view of my foregoing discussion, the prosecution has failed to follow the mandatory provision i.e., FSS regulation Act 2011 2.3.5 regulation in sending the sample of Ex.P.17,Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.24 which was preferred by
Accused to the analysis and there is no corroborative piece of evidence with the evidence of PW.1 to prove the lifting of sample from the accused shop and sending the same to the analysis after due procedure by lifting and preserving the safe condition by note down the temporature.
22.To prove the offence against accused the only evidence on record is PW.1 to PW.3. The search, seizure lifting of samples was conducted by PW.1 alone. Though his subordinate by name G.Ramaiah,
P.Seetharmaiah were accompanied to PW.1 during the course of search and seizure but his subordinate by name G.Ramaiah, P.Seetha Ramaiah were not signed in Ex.P.3 to P.7 and they were not cited as a witness in this case and they were not examined before this court, best reasons known to them. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it is quite evident that PW.1 failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated U/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C during the search and seizure, during the time of raids. And moreover PW.1 failed to secure any mediators from the scene of offence though there is sufficient availability to secure mediators from that place as the alleged scene of offence is busy area 13 with the movement of general public as admitted by PW.1. And admittedly, no summons were served on any one calling them as mediators. As PW.1 failed to follow the procedure prescribed U/sec.100 (4)
Cr.P.C. It is expedient to have a glance on section.100 (4) of Cr.P.C/103 (4)
BNSS for better appreciation of the evidence in this case.
“Sec.100 (4)/103 (4) BNSS reads as follows:: Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do...” As per the Sec 100 (4) of Cr.P.C/103 (4) BNSS . when the independent Mediators in that locality are not available, the FSS officials has to record the same and issue an order in writing as prescribed above or at least to get assistance of police or revenue officials.
23.It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the food safety officer though scene of offence is located at busy area with the movement of general public as admitted by PW.1. It is settled law that in absence of independent mediator the entire procedure vitiatethe case. This court feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard. The Hon'ble High court of A.P in the case of 'Yeduru sreenivasul reddy Vs State of A.P' reported in '2002(1)
A.L.D (Crl) 347 (A.P)'held that: “When the search and seizure taken place in a busy locality and none have come forward to act as a panch witness, the police should have resort to section. 100(4) of Cr.P.C/103 (4)
BNSS and should pass a written order. Therefore, in the absence of any such written order, the evidence of Police officials that no one came forward to act as mediator can not be believed and relied upon. Therefore, 14 the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated. Held, the search and seizure as well as conviction can not be sustained.” As held in the above authority, here in this case PW.1 failed to follow to opt the prescribed procedure as per concerned FSS Act or in U/sec.100 (4) Cr.P.C.
as contemplated and non-securing of independent mediators by the food safety officials are creating doubt on the entire prosecution case.
24.As held in the above authority, here in this case PW.1 failed to follow to opt the prescribed procedure as per concerned law under FSS Act or in u/sec. 100 (4) Cr.P.C. as contemplated and non- securing of independent mediators by the food safety officials are creating doubt on the entire prosecution case.
25.On perusal of entire case records, as it clearly shown that, the entire search and seizure was conducted by PW1. Except PW.1 and PW.3, no other official witnesses were examined in this case, in support of the prosecution version for the alleged charge of offence, as in this case PW.1 being the Food Safety Officer conducted the raids, search, lifting of samples of bananas, but PW.3 only receiving the documents from the authorities and filed a complainant after due verification of investigation of PW.1, here in this case PW.1 did not mention in his
Exhibit /P7 panchanama before reached to the scene of offence, whether he has conducted raids at any other place or not. Further PW1 deposed that as he himself along with his office subordinate /attender were accompanied along with him during the time of conducting raids, search but the signatures of his office subordinate was not inscribed in the Ex.P3 to P.6, P7 Panchanama. Moreover, the PW1 did not added the name of the such office subordinate by name G.Ramaiah, P.Seetha Ramaiah as a witness in support of his version as he conducted raids, search lifting of banana samples in this case. Moreover the PW.1 deposed that as he conducted raids at Banana repining Chamber of accused at Sivuni Manyam 15 street, beside Medha degree college, Mydukur. But to prove the same as such Banana Repining Chamber is in the name of the accused or not, here
PW.1, PW.3 were not file any of the record before this court to show that as the accused is the owner of such Banana Repining Chamber or as he is a proprietor or worker of that Banana repining Chamber and no such licence or Municipal tax has to be filed before this Court which it creates a doubt whether the accused was the person as he is the proprietor or the owner of such banana repining chamber. Though PW.1 deposed that as the accused does not showed any license and municipal recepits to that banana repining chamber, however when the license and municipal receipts was not holding by the accused, then it is the duty of PW.1 to inspect any other records to shows as he is the proprietor of that banana repining chamber by collecting the Electricity bill or any other records to show as he is owner of such repining chamber. Moreover in Ex.P.7 panchanama, PW.1 did not mentioned whether banana repining chamber is a building or tenant or any shelter is not mentioned clearly in Ex.P.7 panchanama. Further PW.1 did not mentioned such banana repining chamber house number or Electricity bill or any municipal receipts to shows that as the accused is the person as he is the owner of proprietor of that banana repining chamber, failure to file the said records by PW.1 is creates a doubt, whether PW.1 conducted such raids or not at the scene of offence due to none of the witnesses support of his version as per his contention and PW1 did not added as a witness to his office subordinate
G.Ramaiah, P.Seetha Ramaiah in the memo of evidence, though they were accompanied to PW.1 at the scene of offence.
26.Though PW1 deposed that as the accused is the person and he is the proprietor for banana Repining chamber. But in his evidence, he himself admitted and record show that during the time of conducting raids, he did not seized any of the chemical substance at that place ie., either 16 carbide Gas, Ethephon or by carbohydrates or any other chemical substance or food poisoning things at the scene of offence for the alleged charge offence as the accused doing repining the bananas by using any of the above ethephon, carbide gas machinary, carbohydrate or chemical substance which is unfit for human consumption and unfit for human’s health in violation of Provisions of Food Safety Standards Act. Moreover
PW.1 deposed that as he purchased the 20 bananas for Rs.60/- from the accused and obtained the receipt from him. In that context the learned
APP marked the Exhibit P.3 receipt as it clearly shows that such receipt is prepared by PW1 in his own format and it does not shows and contains as in a general format while purchasing any commodities at outside of the market as Exhibit P3 receipt is also does not shows like the same manner as a general receipt, here PW.1 himself admitted that such Ex.P.3 is prepared by himself and no such cash receipts was given by Accused, in that it clearly shows to means, which it creates doubts whether PW.1 purchased fruits from Accused or not and whether Accused doing such fruits business or not and Accused sold such bananas to PW.1 or not, itself creates a doubt in that aspect.
27. Further PW.1 did not file registers before this court after preserving the bananas in 4 crates for sending the said bananas for analysis purpose, but the temperature were not noted in their registers as admitted by PW1 and records also not shows like that and PW1 also did not depose at what temperature he was preserve such bananas in their registers. In that context the said bananas are perishable in nature. But he did not mention either in his evidence and did not file any of the registers
before this court to show at what temperature he was preserved such
bananas and did not depose in his evidence how many days such bananas may be in good condition and PW.1 failed to depose in his evidence on such aspect. Moreover the chemical examiner who issued the analysis 17 report, Such person is not examined before this court to depose evidence except marking of Exhibit.
28. Here in this case though the PW1 deposed evidence, PW2 who acted as mediator in this case turned hostile and did not support to the case of prosecution. Except the evidence of PW1 none other witnesses were examined by the prosecution and food analysist was not examined in regard to his food analysis report. Here in this case though the scene of offence is busy area but PW1 did not secure any independent local respectable inhabitants at the scene of offence to act as mediator, PW1 did not file to show any of the records either by electricity bill or by any of the records to show as the accused is the owner or proprietor of such banana repining chamber, PW1 did not mention the house number and did not state in his evidence whether such banana repining chamber is a building or tenant or a shelter. Moreover, though there is possibility to secure and get assistance of police officials or revenue officias, but PW1 did not try to secure of such officials. Here in this case while the Accused preferred for testing of seized lifting samples as it preserved lifted by PW.1 for laboratory at Pune, but the concerned authority was returned and issue a certificate under Ex.P.23, Ex.P.24 with a reason that the sample received in detoriarated condition and it is unfit for analysis, with this Ex.P.23,
Ex.P.24 report it clearly shows that as the concerned were not preserve the samples safely in the prescribed temparature safely, which it shows that the concerned FSS authority failure to follow provision prescribed in that
Act, Regulation, when Ex.P.12, Ex.P.23, Ex.P.24 were in contrary opinion though such bananas were lifted by PW.1 for analsis purpose, then it creates a doubt in case of prosecution version due to different opinion as in analysis report of under Ex.P.12 and in Ex.P.23, Ex.P.24 by different laboratory with their reason. Failure to preserve the lifted bananas without 18 following prescribed procedure under Act, regultion by note down the temparature is vitiates the entire case of prosecution.
29. In view of above discussion as it clearly shows that the search and seizure, lifting of samples was conducted by the PW1 alone. Here in this case though the PW1 deposed evidence for the alleged charge against the accused person. But the search and seizure, lifting of samples itself creates a doubt as discussed above. Hence conviction for the accused is not sustainable based upon the sole testimony of PW1 evidence due to as many as lacunes and non filing requisite registers to show the recording of proper temperature to preserve the bananas safely before sent to the food analyst. Here in this case PW1 himself clearly deposed that as such bananas were purchased by the accused from the farmers but no evidentiary proof filed before this court whether the farmers themselves repining that bananas before sold it to the accused or the accused himself repining such bananas before sold such bananas in the market is in a doubtful due to no chemical substance was seized by PW1 at banana repining chamber.
30. Though PW.3 is examined in this case by the prosecution, but he was not parcipated while the time of conducting raids and he is not first informant in this case as he simply received the documents from the concerned and filed a complaint before this court as he is not the person to receive credible information and he did not conducted raids and hence the evidence of PW.3 is no way useful to the case of the prosecution in this case as he accompanied along with PW.1 while the time of conducting of raids in this case.
31.In view of all facts and circumstances, the evidence of PW1 is not substantial enough to prove the alleged charged offence against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts due to as many as lacunas, admissions and in violations of procedureas prescribed under law. As in 19 this case except PW1 none of the witnesses was examined in support of his version and the mediator turns hostile. Except the evidence of PW1 to
PW.3, no other witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of the version of prosecution case. Though PW.3 is examined as he was not participated in raids except receiving the document and he was not preserve the seized lifting samples of bananas. Hence conviction is not sustainable based upon the sole testimony of PW1. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence conviction is not sustainable based upon the sole testimony of PW1. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, benefit of doubt should go in favour of accused.
Accordingly point is answered.
32. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences u/Secs. 3 (1) (zz) (iii), 26 (2) (i) r/w Regulation No.2.3.5 of FSS ( Prohibition and Restriction)
Regulations, 2011 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the accused is acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over. No property was produced before this court and no property order could be passed.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 14th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- S.Khaja Moinuddin
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mydukur
MEMO OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for prosecution:For Defence:Nil PW.1: T.Sekhar Reddy. Rtd. Food safety officer. PW.2: Shaik Basha Vali. PW.3: K.Shankar, Rtd. Asst. Food controller, Kadapa. Exhibits marked for prosecution:For Defence:Nil
Ex.P1 is Order No.742/FSSA/AP/2015, dt.05.06.2015.
Ex.P2 is work order, dated 26.10.2026 vide R.C.No.1056/F4/2016.
Ex.P3 is the cash receipt of Rs.60/-, dated 15.04.2017
Ex.P4 is the Form V-A Notice, dated 15.04.2017.
20
Ex.P5 isthelabel,dated15.04.2017bearing code.No.011/KDP/DII/12159/2017.
Ex.P6 is the notice under rule 2.4.1 (III) of FSS Rules, 2011, dated 15.04.2017.
Ex.P7 is the panchanama, dated 15.04.2017.
Ex.P8 copy of form VI memorandum containing impression seal sent to the food analysist, Hyderabad.
Ex.P9 is the Postal receipt No.ACA411651215, dated 15.04.2017.
Ex.P10 is the separate registered post vide postal receipt No.ARN571354671,
dated 15.04.2017.
Ex.P11 is the letter, dated 15.04.2017 deposits of three parts of samples.
Ex.P12 is the food analysis report bearing No.88/2017-18, dated 05.05.2017 along with covering letter No.231/SFL/2017, dated 05.05.2017.
Ex.P13 is the Section 46 (4) of FSS Act, 2006 to the accused along with Ex.P.12 report, dated 09.05.2017.
Ex.P14 postal receipt No.ARN561950688, dated 12.05.2017.
Ex.P15 is the interim detailed report along with annexure sent to the commissioner of Food safety, Vijayawada.
Ex.P16 is the Form VIII of sample to the referal food laboratory, Pune.
Ex.P17 is the form VI-A, letter addressed to the Director, State Public Health laboratory, Pune.
Ex.P.18 is the signature of PW.2 on Ex.P.3.
Ex.P.19 is the signature of PW.2 on Ex.P.4.
Ex.P.20 is the signature of PW.2 on Ex.P.5.
Ex.P.21 is the signature of PW.2 on Ex.P.6.
Ex.P.22 is the signature of PW.2 on Ex.P.7.
Ex.P.23 is the certificate of analysis issued by the referal food laboratory, pune,
dated 05.06.2017.
Ex.P.24 is the Proceedings of Asst. Food controller, Kadapa, dated 01.07.2017.
Ex.P.25 is the letter addressed by Asst. Food controller, Kadapa to commisioner of Food safety Directorate, dated 01.07.2017.
21
Ex.P.26 is the sanction proceedings of prosecute the case against the accused
before this court issued by the commissioner of food safety vide
reference No.R.C.No.712/F4/2017, dated 17.07.2017.
Material Objects Marked:-NIL
Id/- S.K.M J.F.C.M. Mydukur //TRUE COPY// 22
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
Calendar of cases tried by the Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate
of I Class, Mydukur
Date of ReportApprehRelease CommencClose of Date of Offenceension on bailement of trailJudgment. of trial accuse d 29.03.201629.03.2016----11.06.20207.05.202614.05.2026 4
Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.276/2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Cum
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur.
Name of the Complainant: The Food Safety Officer, O/o Assistant Food Controller, Zone IV, Old RIMS, Kadapa.
Name of the accused with AgeCallingReligionResidence. father’s name SivuniManyam Shaik Khadar Basha, Street, S/o S.Ghouse Peer, 43Banana Ripening BesideMedha Proprietor of M/s KhadarMuslim Degreecollege, yearsBusiness Basha Banana, Mydukur, Repining chamber, Kadapa District.
Offence: U/sec. 3 (1) (zz) (iii), 26 (2) (I) r/w Regulation No.2.3.5 of Food Safetyand Standards ( prohibition and Restriction on Sales) Regulations, 2011 of FSS Act-2006, punishable U/sec 59(i) of Food safety and Standards Act-2006.
Finding: Accused is found not guilty.
Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences u/Secs. 3 (1) (zz) (iii), 26 (2) (i) r/w Regulation No.2.3.5 of FSS ( Prohibition and Restriction) Regulations, 2011 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the accused is acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over. No property was produced before this court and no property order could be passed.
Sd/- S.Khaja Moinuddin,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mydukur.
//TRUE COPY//
To The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge. Kadapa. Dis No. Dated: