1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.148 OF 2005 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.P.P. for the appellant. Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, advocate for respondent. PER COURT : 1. This is an application for seeking leave to file appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this appeal, the learned A.P.P. makes application under Section 378 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of leave to file this appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule, in Regular Criminal Case No. 54 of 1999. The respondent was accused. She was charged under Section 7 (i) r/w Section 2, punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The main reason why the prosecution failed to prove its case before the Lower Court is, want of evidence. The Food Inspector alone was the prosecution witness. Although, the respondent- 2 accused did not opt for sending sample for analysis to the Central Laboratory, the prosecution did not prove the report of the Public Analyst by examining him. The Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not include Public Analyst, and so, his report could not have been exhibited without, examining him and without proving the same. This, in my view, is the most important factor resulting into acquittal of the respondent-accused. I find no illegality in the impugned Judgment and order. Leave refused. The appeal stands disposed of. 27th Sept, 10 ( A. V. NIRGUDE) JUDGE. gas/cria148.05