( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3711 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Bhaskar s/o. Baburao Satonkar .. Respondent Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the applicant. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 11.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the applicant/State. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Partur, in R.C.C. No. 3 of 1997, decided on 14.05.2009, whereby the respondent was acquitted of offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as below :- ( 2 ) . Food Inspector, K.R. Jaipurkar along with panch witness Sanjay Narayan Gore and one Food Inspector shri S.S. Mulik visited M/s. Panchvati Hotel, on 23.01.1996 at about 11.30 a.m.. They took sample of Atta, which was raw material kept in unlabeled tin box. The Food Inspector took 600 gms. sample of Atta and followed the procedure. He divided the sample into three parts. After packing, labeling and sealing the same, one part of the sample was sent to Public Health Laboratory, Aurangabad, for testing. It was found that the sample did not confirm the standard of Atta as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Ultimately, complaint is filed. 3. The acquittal is mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the Atta was not for sale. Secondly, the Public Analyst failed to send copy of the report to the accused as required under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. So far as first part is concerned, admittedly, the place from where the sample was taken was a hotel and not grocery shop. So, there is substance in the say of the ( 3 ) accused/respondent. As held by the Trial Court, the Atta was not for sale. Secondly, it is specifically admitted by the Local Health Authority that copy of report of Public Analyst was not sent to the accused. Thus, there was no compliance under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 5. In these circumstances, the acquittal is well reasoned and justified. Hence, leave to file appeal is rejected. The Criminal Application stands dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/cra3711.09