1 crap3594.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3594 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant/ VERSUS Sunil Nathmal Shukla ...Respondent ..... Shri B.V.Wagh, advocate for applicant None for respondent, although served ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 16 th June, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant/State. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant/State seeking leave to file appeal, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal, dated 4.5.2010, passed by the learned 3 rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna, in R.C.C. No. 17 of 2000, thereby acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 2 crap3594.10 2(ia)(m) and 2(ia)(h) r/w Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3 In the present matter, allegedly the Food Inspector Mr. Anant Madhav Dhapre seized Baazigar Gutkha from the factory of accused on 27.1.1999 and same was sent to the Public Analyst for examination purpose, and in the said context, learned advocate for the accused raised the point that there is no standard prescribed for Gutkha under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules thereunder. It is also canvassed that standard is prescribed for Panmasala and Gutkha is not Panmasala and the said fact is admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination. Hence, it is further canvassed that no offence was committed by the accused under law, and therefore, he is entitled for acquittal. 4 The complainant replied that although Gutkha is expressly not defined under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it fulfills all the requirements of the definition of “food” under Section 2 (u) of the said Act. According to Section 2(v) of the said Act, “food” means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes :- 3 crap3594.10 (A) Any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of, human food, (B) any flavoring matter or condiments and (C) any other article which the Central Government may having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declare by notification in the official Gazette, as food for the purposes of this Act. So Gutkha is an article of Food as defined under Section 2(v) of the P.F.A. Act. And all the food articles must comply with the Rules laid down under the Act. 5 Considering the rival contentions raised by the parties, learned Trial Court observed that the argument canvassed by the complainant is not acceptable and for want of prescribed standard of Gutkha under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules thereunder, the accused cannot be held liable to be convicted and no offence is committed by him. It is also observed that the report of the Public Analyst shows presence of Magnesium carbonate in sample and for want of standard of Gutkha, the accused cannot be held to have committed the offence as alleged, and consequently, acquitted the accused. Thus, the reasoning and the finding given by the Trial Court cannot be considered out of place 4 crap3594.10 and same cannot be faulted with. 6 In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence, the view adopted by the learned Trial Judge while acquitting the accused is a possible view, and there does not appear to be glaring defect, as well as the said view also does not appear to be perverse, and hence, no interference therein is called for. 7 In the result, present application stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal is refused and present application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap3594.10