(1) Cri. Application No. 2787 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No. 2787 of 2011 The State of Maharashtra,through Mr. Tuljadas Chandidasrao Boralkar, Food Inspector, Food and Drugs .. Applicant Administration, Jalna [M.S.]. (Original complainant) versus Premchand Narayan Agrawal, Proprietor and Vendor of M/s. Shivam Medical Agencies, .. Respondent 1-7-30, R.P. Road, Jalna [M.S.]. (Original accused) ....................... Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER 2011 (2) Cri. Application No. 2787 of 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant / State seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31-1-2011, rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, in R.C.C. No. 118/2000, thereby acquitting the respondent herein i.e. original accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 24 and 40(2), punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (For short, hereinafter referred to as "PFA Act") 3. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused. 4. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 31-1-2011, and record and proceedings with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Admittedly, the accused herein is vendor of food article i.e. B-Protein Mango Flavour, and not the manufacturer thereof. It appears from the record that the Food Inspector has not given public analysis report to the accused, as well as, he has (3) Cri. Application No. 2787 of 2011 not proved that the show cause notice under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act was duly served upon accused person. Moreover, the postal acknowledgment receipt of the accused herein does not bear the postal stamp, and signature on the postal acknowledgment has not been identified, and hence, present case suffers from non-compliance of Section 13(2) of PFA Act. 6. Besides, although the accused has challenged the consent order, the prosecution has not examined the Joint Commissioner who gave the consent. It also appears that the consent has been given by in-charge Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Aurangabad, although he is not empowered to give consent for launching the prosecution against the accused. The consent order issued by in-charge Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Aurangabad, is not proper and legal. 7. Accordingly, it appears that there are discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution case. Hence, having comprehensive view of the matter, and after scrutinizing and analyzing the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial court, while acquitting the accused, is a possible view, and the same does not appear to be perverse. Moreover, reasoning adopted by the learned trial court, while acquitting the (4) Cri. Application No. 2787 of 2011 accused, also apparently, cannot be faulted with. Hence, present Application does not bear any substance, and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same deserves to be rejected. 8. In the result, present Criminal Application, which is sans merits, stands dismissed, and leave to file appeal is refused. 9. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka2787