1 crap3143.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3143 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra, through Food Inspector, Jalna ...Applicant [Orig.Complainant] VERSUS Pramodkumar Dhanraj Totala ...Respondent [Orig.Accused] ..... Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for applicant Shri A.B.Kale, advocate for sole respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 13th December, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant (original complainant), seeking leave to file appeal, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.3.2011, rendered by the learned 2 crap3143.11 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, in R.C.C. No. 264 of 1996, thereby acquitting the respondent (original accused) from the charges under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3 I have perused the impugned judgment and order, dated 29.3.2011 and the R. and P. with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 4 Admittedly, the accused herein namely Pramodkumar Dhanraj Totala is the Proprietor of M/s Samarth Agencies, Jalna i.e. vendor/retailor of “Purti Tajgi Masala” i.e. the food article and not the manufacturer thereof. Moreover, the accused has produced the bills of purchase to that effect at Exhs. 89 and 90. Admittedly samples tof said Purti Tajgi Masala were collected in packet and sealed condition. 5 Pertinently, panch witness has not been examined by the prosecution in he present case, and therefore, the observations made by the learned Trial Court that accused is entitled for benefit of Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as he has sold out the company packed packets i.e. food articles as a vendor and he is not manufacturer of it, and he has not tampered with the 3 crap3143.11 packets and has also not manipulated any food articles, cannot be faulted with. 6 Having the comprehensive view of the matter, the observations made by the learned Trial Court that there are inconsistencies and infirmities in the prosecution case and the prosecution has not examined the sampling assistant, and therefore, gave benefit of doubt to the accused, also are not out of place. 7 In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and assessing the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused is a possible view and same does not appear to be perverse, and hence, no interference therein is called for in the appellate jurisdiction, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 8 In the result, present application stands dismissed and leave to file appeal is refused. R. and P. be sent back to the concerned court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap3143.11