1 appln.4954-2009 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4954 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant. Vs. Satish Yashwant Patole ..Respondent. ----- Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the Applicant-State. ---- CORAM: M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. AUGUST 17, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Shitole, learned APP for the applicant-State. 2. The State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli on 22.7.2009 in Criminal Appeal no.223 of 2008. The appellant in the said appeal was originally accused in Regular Cr. Case No.88 of 2004 decided by the J.M.F.C., Tasgaon. The original accused who is the respondent herein was 2 appln.4954-2009 convicted for the the offence punishable under Section 16(1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default to suffer R.I. for a period of three months. 3. As stated earlier, the respondent had filed appeal before the Sessions Court which came to be decided on 22.7.2009. The order of the learned trial court was set aside, and the respondent was acquitted. 4. Learned APP states that the appellate court i.e. Sessions Court has wrongly interpreted Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. It was pointed out that permitted synthetic food colours were allowed to be used only in the food articles mentioned in clauses (a) to (h) of the Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He further points out that the raisin was not one of the food articles mentioned in Rule 29 of the said Rules. The raisin samples collected from respondent contained Tartrazine and brilliant blue FCF. The Public Analyst also found that the sample did not conform the P.F. Rules. 3 appln.4954-2009 5. Since ever permitted synthetic food colours were not allowed to be used in raisin, the question of percentage thereof was not the point to be considered by the appellate court. 6. Prima facie, it appears that the appellate court misdirected itself while deciding the issue in question. The State has, therefore, made out a case for grant of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. 7. Leave to appeal is granted. Criminal Application stands disposed off. 8. Appeal be registered and admitted. Issue notice to the respondent. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.)