1 3044.10-appln IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3044 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Versus Dhanaji Raghunath Patil ..Respondent Smt.A.A.Mane, APP for Applicant. None for respondent. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : MARCH 7, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned APP for the State on this leave application preferred by the State to file an appeal against the order dated 16th January, 2010 in M.A.No.25 of 2009 and another order dated 15th March, 2008 in Regular Criminal Case No.29 of 2005. 2. Regular Criminal Case No.29 of 2005 was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pen, Dist. Raigad against the accused – present respondent for the alleged offence under Section (7)(1) r/w. Section 2(ia)(a) and 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 and Section 7(v) read with Rule 32(b)(c)(f)(i), Rule 47 and Rule 50 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and Rule 5 of Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1962 punishable under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 and Rules there under, committed on 15th May, 2004. 3. The said matter was pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pen till March, 2008. Vide order dated 15th March, 2008, the gist of which is at Page 26 of the present Leave Petition, said criminal case was dismissed for non appearance of the complainant – Food Inspector, Raigad. 2 3044.10-appln 4. After dismissal of the original complaint, as above, another fresh complaint was preferred by the same complainant for the same cause of action as to the offence committed on 15th May, 2004. The said fresh complaint was belatedly filed after a delay of 10 months. A separate application being M.A.No.25 of 2009 was preferred by the complainant. It was argued and order dated 16th January, 2010 which is also impugned in the present matter was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pen maintaining that the delay of five years is not properly explained. 5. Under the above premise of dismissal of the earlier complaint by first order and rejection of the delay condonation application and consequently non accepting the second complaint, the present applicant had preferred this appeal along with the present application for leave to appeal as per the provisions of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. After going through the documents, which are annexed to the present appeal memo and after hearing the learned APP for State and considering the charges leveled against respondent accused and considering the merit of the first order dated 15th March, 2008 dismissing the complaint for default apparently amounts to acquittal of accused being summons triable case and considering explanation of delay of 10 months in preferring the second complaint, filing of which is in fact doubtful, it is not warranted to interfere with the said impugned order and to allow the applicant to re-agitate the issue. 7. In the premise, the present matter has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)