((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1222 OF 2009 Dilip Anant Karanjkhele Applicant on behalf of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corpn. Pune versus Madansing Ratansing Purohit Respondent D.R.More for the applicant. Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 02nd April 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant in support of this application under sub section 4 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The first respondent was charged for the violation of sections 7(i) read with 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(j) and 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1854 read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 punishable under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. One of the grounds on which the order of acquittal is passed is that the compliance with the mandatory requirement ((-2-)) of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 has not been established by the prosecution. There are other findings recorded on merits. 2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that PW-1 admitted that he had not cleaned the bottles in which the samples were collected from the spot. He stated that he was unable to state as to who had cleaned the said bottles. The prosecution did not examine the person who had cleaned the bottles and that is the reason as to why a finding has been recorded that compliance with requirements of Rule 14 of the said Rules of 1955 is not established. This Court has consistently held that the requirement of Rule 14 is mandatory. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that other findings recorded by the learned Magistrate are totally perverse. 4. As compliance with Rule 14 of the said Rules of 1955 has not been established, the leave cannot be granted. However, it will have to be clarified that refusal of this Court to grant leave shall not be construed as ((-3-)) confirmation of other findings recorded by the learned Magistrate on merits of the case and all issues raised by the applicant in that behalf are expressly kept open. 5. It is obvious that this order shall not be construed as confirmation of the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate as regards applicability of the said Act of 1954. Subject to what is observed above the prayer for leave is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)