1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No. 853/1994 PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. Solanki State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmiram Chauhan, Production Manager Cosmos Industries *** Shri P.C. Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State. Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, learned counsel for the respondents. Date of hearing: 03/02/2011 Date of Judgment: 05/07/2011 J U D G M E N T The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 21.12.1992 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen in Criminal Case No. 1083/91 whereby the respondent has been acquitted to the charges levelled against him for offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. It is undisputed that leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal of respondent passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, has been granted by this Court on 23.8.1994 under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also undisputed that on the same day i.e. on 23.8.1994, order of bailable warrant of arrest of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety of the same amount has been passed against 2 the respondent for his appearance before this Court. Thereafter, case was adjourned on the basis of one or other reasons and ultimately respondent was arrested and appeared before this Court. Thereafter he has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.12.2010 by this Court and case was fixed for final hearing at admission stage. It is also undisputed that arguments of respective parties were heard on 3/2/2011 and reserved for judgment. 3. Prosecution case in short was that on 11.5.1991 complainant V.K. Khare, Food Inspector, inspected the Cosmos Industries and during investigation he purchased 900 milliliter ice-cream from Assistant Production Manager, Shri Harinarayan Umrao. Thereafter he divided the aforesaid ice-cream in three equal parts and prepared samples after pouring formalin and sealed them. Out of the said samples, one was sent for examination to the Public Analyst and remaining two were deposited to the local authorities. Sample was found adulterated by Public Analyst. 4. After usual formality and taking sanction for prosecution from the higher authorities, prosecuted the respondent before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen. 5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen framed the charges against the respondent under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Respondent abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. 3 6. On appraisal of evidence on record, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen acquitted the respondent by the impugned judgment dated 21/12/1992. Being aggrieved, State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal against acquittal of the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that trial Court committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence in its true perspective. It is further submitted that the view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be reasonable, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned judgment. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that prosecution failed to prove the fact that sample of ice-cream purchased by complainant (Food Inspector) for the purpose of analysis was not ready for sale, therefore, the view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable. He placed reliance on Criminal Revision No. 158 of 1972, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Nand Kishore. He further submitted that the sanction for prosecution has been accorded without application of mind, therefore, trial Court rightly acquitted the respondent on aforesaid grounds. He further submitted that it is well settled principle of law that if trial Court has taken a reasonable view for acquitting the respondent, which is possible from the evidence on record then High Court should not interfere in the appeal against acquittal. 9. I have, heard the parties and perused the 4 impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. 10. Complainant V.K. Khare (PW1), Food Inspector, himself admitted in his cross-examination that he took the sample from the part of the factory where ice-cream was prepared. He further admitted that ice-cream was not sent to sale section. 11. Harinarayan Umrao (PW3) also admitted that Food Inspector took the sample from the factory where ice-cream was prepared. It shows that ice-cream was purchased during the process of preparation and same was not ready, for sale and for human consumption, then it will not amount to a sale of an article of food within the meaning of Section 2 (v) or Section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 12. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the trial Court did not commit any illegality and took the reasonable view which is possible from the evidence on record. Thus, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for interference in the appeal against acquittal. 13. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14. Record of the trial Court be sent back alongwith a copy of this judgment for compliance. (G.S. Solanki) JUDGE ravi