( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 341 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Through Food Inspector, Food and Drug Administration, Dhule. Versus Ravindra Jairam Amritkar .. Respondent Age. 28 years, Resident of Dhule, Jogeshwari Traders, Behind Bhatwal Talkies, Vishnunagar, Lane No. 9, Deopur, Dhule. Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for the applicant. Miss Mamta Warma h/f. Shri B.R. Warma, Advocate for sole respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 04.02.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : - 1. This is an appeal filed by the State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule, in R.C.C. No. 36 of 1993, decided on 27.11.1998, whereby the present respondent was ( 2 ) only convicted of offence punishable under Section 7 (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short “P.F.A. Act”) read with Rule 50 of the Food Adulteration Rules (for short “P.F.A. Rules”) & Rule 5 of the Maharashtra P.F.A. Rules and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. Other charge is under section 7 (i) read with section 2 (ia) (a) of the P.F.A. Act. However, there was no conviction under the same and presumed acquittal. This is not case for enhancement of punishment which is already awarded. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as below :- . The respondent was found running a grocery shop by name “Jogeshwari Traders” behind Bhatwal Talkies, Vishnu Nagar, Deopur, Dhule on 29.08.1991. On that day complainant Ramchandra Koli, Food Inspector along with Panch Kedarnath and another Food Inspector Shri S.V. Joshi visited the shop of the respondent and found that there was 7 kg. groundnut oil stored for sale. The complainant purchased 450 gms. groundnut oil in presence of panchas for Rs. 12=60. He took ( 3 ) the sample in three bottles. The same were packed, labelled and sealed. Other procedure was followed. One part of the sample was sent to Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the sample of groundnut did not confirm the prescribed standard. It was also found that there was no license for running the shop and selling food articles. So, charge-sheet was sent against the respondent. 3. After recording evidence, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the offence of running grocery shop without licence was proved and therefore convicted the respondent of offence punishable under section 7 (v) of the P.F.A. Act as stated earlier, but answered point No.2 in the negative. Point No.2 is regarding storing and selling adulterated groundnut oil. However, I do not find any order of acquittal specifically passed. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal. 4. Heard A.P.P. Shri B.V. Wagh for the complainant/ appellant and Adv. Miss Mamta Warma for sole respondent. They have taken me through the entire evidence. ( 4 ) 5. The Trial Court has come to a conclusion in para 15 of the judgment that the sample bottles were not cleaned and dried in presence of the panchas. He referred to para 15 of the cross-examination of the complainant – Food Inspector Koli. Therein, the Food Inspector admitted that he had not cleaned the bottles in presence of panchas. He could not tell who had cleaned the bottles. He had carried glass bottles with him in his bag. It is also admitted that adulterated substance was not mentioned in the report of the Public Analyst. 6. If, we consider the Public Analyst’s report at Exh. 42, it is clear that mainly the oil was held to be adulterated as rancidity was found in it. It may be noted that the sample was taken on 29.08.1991 and the report of Public Analyst is signed on 03.10.1991. So, almost one month was over. 7. It is argued by Adv. Miss Warma that if the bottle is not cleaned, rancidity may develop faster even in a good oil. The Public Analyst report itself does not disclose why the oil was stated to be adulterated. It is not that it is ( 5 ) mentioned therein that some extraneous substance was added to the oil. 8. In any case, since there is no reference to the acquittal of offence under section 7 (i) read section 2 (ia) (a) of the P.F.A. Act, it only become technicality. Anyway the accused has undergone sentence of three months as stated at bar and it is also specifically stated by the advocate for the respondent that no appeal was filed against the order of conviction in these, in these circumstances, in my opinion, this is not case where interference in the appeal is called for. The sample was taken in 1991. Now almost 19 years are over. Already punishment of three months is undergone. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/FEB10/crap341.99