‘ ‘- APELIANI : RE S-PGNDENTSE: ~ EEE 3TTE mm E§S TMGUGH FOOD mm MB DRUGS AmmISTMTION, RAJNAND- GAGMMPM ' V v 1 KUMELAL We METIYA GAmRIYA. AGED 35 YEARS, R/e BAm BHARDA, ‘ POLICE SEETION MUNDA. DISTRICft DURG u ~ 2. SHIVKUMAR $/o ammmw mum, R/a BAmBmam, DIsTRIcbDURGm -VERSUS“ ,‘mmalwm, A . wT 78 r AWLlION FOR IEAVE TO APEAL UNDER $CTIOR V. “C & Q m DEH HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1854 of 1996. APPELLANT State of Madhya Prédesh. VERSUS Kumelal and another. i RESPONDENTS § Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the appellant/State. Shri B D Badgaiyan counsel for the respondents CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE O R D E R (24.02.201 0) The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 13.6.1996 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Case No. 1099/1995 acquitting the respondents/accused of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(ii) & (a) and (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.10.1990 respondents/accused were intercepted by the Food inspector namely M. Das (PW-1) while they were carrying cow milk in the containers for sale. It is alleged that after giving due notice to the respondents/accused, sampling was done and the samples so prepared were sent to public analyst for chemical examination and after receiving the report Ex. P-14, the complaint was filed on 3.6.1991. 3. The prosecution has examined only one witness in support of its case. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they ff ‘ denied the charges»~_.l.e.ve|led against them and pleaded their l l 1 innocence'and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the Court below acquitted the . l respondents/accused of the charge levelled against them. 5. > Counsel for the appellant/State submits that on the basis of material available on record the Court below ought to have convicted l ; *l_ tl’ie respondents/accused for the offence under section 16(1) (ii) & (f) and (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but having Ignored the eVIdence adduced by the prosecution and thereby awarding acqwttai to them on technical ground It has landed itself In aggrave iegal error. ‘ 6 On the other hand counsel for the respondents/accused supports the Impugned Judgment 7 In paragraph 3 of his eVIdence the sole Witness examined by the prosecution has stated that after purchasmg the milk and collecting samples he had mixed the same to homogenlze the samples and then he filled the same In three bottles and after packing and sealing he had sent the same for chemical examination. lt is‘thus very clear that before purchasing the milk from the containers for preparation ofsamples, it was not stirred and mixed in such a way which would make the milk homogeneous. Thus, according to the considered opinion of this Court the sample which had been sent for analysis in the present case was not representative of the entire milk stored in the containers and in this view of the matter the Court below appears to be correct in holding that the entire process undertaken by the prosecution in collecting the sample was vicious. 8. Thus after going through the material available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Count taking one view favoured the accused this Court is of the considered opinion that reverSIon of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possrble View Into conSIderatIon Is not permissible In law and therefore the Judgment Impugned acqUIttIng the respondents [accused of the offence under Section 16(1)(II) & (a) and (I) of the Prevention-of Food Adulteration Act, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingl dismissed. y