( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 342 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 343 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Kiranraj Sampatraj Jain RESPONDENT ..... Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the applicant/State. Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th October, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. There is delay of 55 days in filing of the appeal. The delay has been explained in the application and is attributed to official difficulties. It appears that the delay occurred due to movement of the file from office of the Law & Judiciary Department to the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court and subsequently in drafting of the appeal. Considering the reasons ( 2 ) ascribed, the delay is condoned, as the cause is satisfactory. Delay condonation application is accordingly allowed. 3. So far as leave to appeal is concerned, the impugned judgement of acquittal is rendered only on the basis of non-compliance of section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears that notice was issued by registered post and acknowledgement was received by the Food Inspector. The learned Magistrate held that the service of the notice on the respondent is not duly proved because signature was said to be that of the father of the respondent, but the same was not duly established. The question whether presumption of such service is necessarily required to be drawn needs to be examined. Considering these aspects, I deem it proper to grant leave to appeal. Hence, leave to appeal is granted. The application is accordingly allowed. 4. Admit the appeal. 5. Print is dispensed with. The record and proceedings be called. 6. Mr. Joydeep Chatterji waives service for the ( 3 ) respondent. 7. The appeal to be scheduled for final hearing in the first week of December, 2009, in as much as a single point is required to be determined. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln342-07