\ i 69# o/o L0.L2.2008 Present: Mr. Manoj Ohri for the appellant. +Crl. L.P. No. 299/2OOB * By way of the present application filed under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C., the appellant seeks grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2.7 .2008. Counsel for toe appellant states that the learned session judge should have accepted the report as given by the Director, CFL in which report was it was confirmed that the total quantity of sugar sucrose was 98.84%. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that once the court has reached to the conclusion that seized samples contained, the adulteration exceeding the specified limit, therefore the court should have given weightage to the report of the Director CFL. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The learned sessions court taking into consideration the various decisions of this courL including the judgments reported as State Vs. Mahender Kumar & Ors. 2OOS(1) FAC 177(Del) and Kanshi Nath Vs. State 2OO5(2) FAC 21-9 (Del), held that the Signing Date:12.07.2024 16:50:15 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified JB sample taken by the Food Inspector from th'e appellant was not of representative character. There is no merit in the present appeal. Leave as sought is declined. r, ft *or*rff*BHl&J. December LO, 2OO8 mg -: a /f