IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4090 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4090 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4090 OF 2007 Regional Enforcement Officer ...Applicant (Orig.Complainant) vs. Manoj Jugalkishor Marda & Anr. ...Respondents (Respondent No.1 - Orig.Accused) Mr.J.C. Satpure and Mr.A.d. Kango for the Applicant. Mr.P.A. Pol, APP for the State. Mr.P.R. Arjunwadkar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2008 DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2008 DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and Counsel for the respondent. 2. The applicant in this Application for Leave to Appeal is challenging the judgment and order passed by the JMFC Court No.3, Solapur. By the said judgment and order dated 7th June, 2007, the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 5 punishable under Section 10 of the Handlooms Act, 1985. 3. The prosecution case is that in violation of the - 2 - Rules and more particularly, the regulation at Serial No.5 of the order issued by the Ministry of Textiles, respondent accused had used his powerloom for the purpose of manufacture of cotton warp and art-silk warp i.e. combination of cotton and viscose which was prohibited under Serial no.5 of the said order. The trial court on the basis of the report which was submitted by the prosecution held that the accused had not contravened the said article at the said Serial No.5 since the prohibition mentioned in the said serial number was for the manufacture of pure cotton warp upto 200 hooks and upto 400 hooks in the case of combination of cotton and art-silk warp. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the material in question did not fall under any of these two categories but belonged to a totally third category i.e. 100% man made fibre warp which is not covered under Serial No.5. 4. The Handlooms (Reservation of Articles for Production) Act, 1985 and the order framed thereunder prohibit manufacture of certain categories of cotton and viscose. Serial No.5 reads as under :- - 3 - "Khes, bedsheet, bedcover, counterpane, furnishing (including tapestry, upholstery) and by whatever name they may be called in different parts of country, including double cloth and tie & dye, made out of cotton or art silk or in any combination thereof, woven with design pattern on multi-treadle loom and/or with dobby and/or jacquards up to 200 hooks in case of pure cotton warp and up to 400 hooks in case of combination of cotton & art silk warp, irrespective of count and dimensions. 5. The trial court on the basis of the report has held that in view of the statements of PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5, the sample designed was on plain cloth and therefore, the restriction given in Serial No.5 would not be applicable to the cloth in question. 6. In my view, there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial court. The trial court has after referring to Serial No.5 of the order dated 22nd July, - 4 - 1996 has compared it with the report which is tendered by the prosecution and then recorded the finding that the restriction does not apply to the cloth seized by the prosecution. Hence, no case is made out for grant of leave. 7. Leave is refused. Appeal does not survive. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)