1 criap-4564.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4564 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : 02.05.2011. 1. Heard Shri S.G. Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for the applicant and Shri Joydeep Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-State, seeking leave to file appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 5.5.2010, rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, in Regular Criminal case No. 529/2005, thereby acquitting the present respondents (original accused) for the offence punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2 criap-4564.10 3. I have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 5.5.2010, as well as record and proceedings with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, and also heard the submissions advanced by them. 4. The allegations against the respondents- accused are that they were running a shop in the name and style "Ganaraj Tel Bhandar" and were selling edible oils, and accused No. 1 was vendor, whereas accused No.2 was the proprietor of the said shop, and on 11.1.2005 at about 11.30 a.m., Food Inspector Prashant Umarani-complainant (PW-1), visited the said shop and collected samples of Kardi oil and groundnut oil, in presence of Panch viz. Suryawant Dhayade (PW-3), and on analysing sample of groundnut oil, it was found to be of required standards, but sample of kardi oil did not conform with the requisite standards. 3 criap-4564.10 5. To substantiate the charge levelled against the respondents-accused, prosecution examined in all three witnesses, namely, PW-1 Prashant Umrani (complainant), PW-2 Ashok Hurgat who was the Local Health Authority, Food and Drugs at Jalna, and PW-3 Suryakant Dhayade, panch witness. 6. However, panch witness Suryakant has given vital admissions in his deposition, that the food inspector collected the sample with the measuring scale from the shop of the accused and that the steel pot, in which the oil was taken by the food inspector, was from the shop of the respondents- accused. PW-3 Suryakant further deposed that the plastic jar, in which the food inspector had collected the sample, was not cleaned and that some oil, while collecting samples with the measuring scale, had fallen down on the floor and the food inspector collected it with his hands from the floor and put 4 criap-4564.10 the same into the plastic Barni. Witness further stated that with the help of measuring stale, the food inspector took the groundnut oil, as well as Kardi oil, and that the steel pot, in which the food inspector had collected the sample of oil, was not washed and cleaned in his presence. 7. Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid admissions by PW-3 Suryakant that there is every possibility of adulteration in the kardi oil, due to follies as pointed out above, and therefore, possibility of sample of kardi oil not conforming with the requisite standards due to said adulteration, cannot be ruled out. 8. Moreover, learned trial court also observed that the evidence regarding compliance of Section 14 (A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is also lacking and mandatory provisions have not been complied with by the prosecution, and 5 criap-4564.10 considering totality of the evidence, learned trial court came to the conclusion that benefit of doubt is required to be given to the accused, and consequently, acquitted the accused. 9. Having the comprehensive view of the matter and after appreciating and analyzing the evidence on record, the view adopted by the trial court, while acquitting the respondents-accused, is a possible view and same does not appear to be perverse, and hence, no interference therein is required, in the appellate jurisdiction, and therefore, present application is required to be rejected. 10. In the result, present application, which is sans merits, stands dismissed and leave to file appeal is refused. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. pnd/criap-4564.10 (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)