(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 4559 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through Shri B.B. Bhosale, Food Inspector, Jalna Food and Drugs .. Applicant Adminstration, Jalna, (Original Taluka & District : Jalna. complainant) versus 1. Atul Kantilal Mewade (Vendor) of M/s. Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Sales Depot, A-7/1, Addl. M.I.D.C., Taluka & District : Jalna. 2. Rajdeo Daroga Roy (Nominee) of M/s. Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Sales Depot, A-7/1, Addl. M.I.D.C., Taluka & District : Jalna. 3. Rajdeo Daroga Roy (Nominee) on Behalf of Shri Santosh Goverdhan Joshi (Director), M/s. Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Sales Depot, A-7/1, Addl. M.I.D.C., Taluka & District : Jalna. 4. Rajdeo Daroga Roy (Nominee) on Behalf of Shri Prashant Mukesh Shah (Director), M/s. Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Sales Depot, A-7/1, Addl. M.I.D.C., Taluka & District : Jalna. (2) 5. Rajdeo Daroga Roy (Nominee) on Behalf of firm M/s. Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Unit No.11, Gut No. 186, Dawalwadi, Taluka : Badnapur, .. Respondents District : Jalna. (Original accused) ....................... Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, Advocate, for the applicant. Respondent nos.1 to 5 served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 13TH JUNE 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned APP for the applicant / State. 2. None for the respondents although served. 3. This is an application filed by the applicant / State seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 4-5-2010, rendered by the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jalna, in S.T.C. No. 1514/2003, thereby acquitting (3) the respondents (original accused) for the offences punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(h) 7(iv), read with Rule 62, read with Sections 16 and 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 4-5-2010 as well as record and proceedings with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The accused were prosecuted for the offences of manufacturing, stocking for sale and selling adulterated food article, "Goa 100 Zarda". Accused no.1 is vendor and accused no.2 is nominee for accused nos.2 to 5. The prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses, namely, Bharat (PW 1), Food Inspector - complainant; Tuljadas (PW 2), Food Inspector; Amarbeen Chaus (PW 3), Panch witness (who turned hostile), and Arun Sable, Senior Clerk at Local Health Authority. 6. Having comprehensive view of the matter, learned trial court has observed that unless the standard is prescribed of a particular food article in Appendix "B" of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, a person cannot be prosecuted for an offence of having manufactured or sold adulterated food. Accordingly, for want of prescribed standard of Jarda, accused are not liable to be (4) convicted as no offence is committed by them. Consequently, although the complainant followed whole procedure while drawing sample, notice under Section 13-A served upon accused, although report of Public Analyst shows presence of Magnesium carbonate in sample, for want of standard of Jarda, the accused cannot be held to have committed offence as alleged. Consequently, learned trial court came to the conclusion that the accused cannot be held guilty and acquitted the accused for the charges levelled against them. Apparently, the said observation cannot be faulted with. 7. Moreover, report of Public Analyst, Exhibit 53, simply states that above sample of Jarda contain calcium and Magnesium carbonate, and hence, contravenes the Rule No.62, as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Rule 62 of the said Rules provides restriction on use of anticaking agents and proviso thereto prescribes the anticaking agents in quantities not exceeding 2.0 percent, either singly or in combination of carbonates of calcium and magnesium. In the present case, the report of Public Analyst does not reflect the quantities of carbonates of calcium and magnesium. 8. In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and analyzing the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial (5) court while acquitting the accused is a possible view and no interference is warranted in appellate jurisdiction. Hence, the present application deserves to be rejected. 9. In the result, present Criminal Application which is sans merits, stands dismissed and leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal is refused. 10. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka4559