( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 284 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant through Food Inspector, Food and Drug Administration, Dhule. Versus Ravindra Jairam Amritkar .. Respondent Age. 28 years, Resident of Jogeshwari Traders, Lane No. 9, Behind Bhatwal Talkies, Vishnu Nagar, Deopur, Dhule. Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for appellant/State. Shri B.R. Warma, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 26.11.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This is an appeal preferred by the State through Food Inspector, Food and Drug Administration, Dhule, being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the Chief ( 2 ) Judicial Magistrate, Dhule, in R.C.C. No. 37 of 1993, decided on 27.11.1998, whereby the respondent is acquitted of offence punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Briefly stated it is case of the complainant - Food Inspector that on 29.08.1991, he had gone to grocery shop by name “Jogeshwari Traders”, Lane No. 9, Vishnunagar, Near Batwal Talkies, Dhule. The complainant was accompanied by Food Inspector Shri Joshi and panch witness Kedarnath. After their introduction, the complainant inspected the shop. The complainant purchased 450 grams turmeric power and 450 grams groundnut oil. He, thereafter, divided the purchased articles into three separate samples and packed, labelled and sealed them as per rules. He, thereafter, followed the procedure as laid down in law. The samples were sent to Public Analyst. After receipt of Public Analyst’s report, complaint was lodged. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken a view that the respondent is convicted in R.C.C. No. 36 of 1993 for selling adulterated groundnut oil and has undergone ( 3 ) three months imprisonment. He also pointed out that Form No. 6 (Exh.26) and notice under Section 14-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Exh.27) were common so far as samples of groundnut oil and turmeric powder are concerned, and, therefore, there ought to have been one trial for both adulterated articles. Since for adulteration of groundnut oil, the respondent was convicted and he has suffered sentence, there could not be second prosecution for offence committed in same course of transaction. According to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, there could not have been second prosecution for adulteration of turmeric powder. Be that as it may. 4. Heard A.P.P. Shri B.V. Wagh for the appellant/State and Shri B.R. Warma, Advocate for the respondent. Adv. Shri B.R. Warma drew my attention to the report of Public Analyst at Exh.41. In the report it is said that sample of turmeric did not confirm to the standards of turmeric powder as per PFA Rules, 1955 and objection was to 43.49% by weight starch and to orange oil soluble colour that was detected in the sample. ( 4 ) 5. So far as starch is concerned, as per Appendix “B”, Item A.05.20.01 termeric (Haldi) powder, total starch is not to exceed 60.0 per cent by weight. So, percentage of starch was within permissible limits. 6. So far as colour is concerned, it is stated in Item A.05.30.01 (iv) that colouring powder expressed as curcuminoid content on dry basis not to exceed 2.0 per cent by weight. 7. This Court in Criminal Appeal No. 379 of 1997 (State of Maharashtra V/s. Motilal Kautik Mali), decided on 23.07.2009 has dealt with similar issue. In that case, the artificial colouring matter found objectionable by the Public Analyst was red and orange oil soluble colour detected. It was observed in para 9 that the percentage of red and orange colour is not shown in the report of public analyst nor there is reference to particular rule under which the red and orange oil soluble colour is prohibited. In para 10 following observations are made :- “10....... In the present case, basically, there is absolutely nothing stated about presence ( 5 ) of any synthetic foodcolour noticed by the Public Analyst while analyzing the turmeric power. One does not know whether the red and orange oil soluble colour was synthetic colour or non- synthetic colour i.e. either herbal or organic colour as such. Unless violation of a particular Rule is borne out from the record, mere presence of such colour which was found to be soluble, will not render the sample as that of adulterated nature. The sample turmeric power is thus not proved to be adulterated for the purpose of holding the Respondent answerable to the charge for the offence punishable U/s 7 read with Section 17 of the PFA Act.” . The Court ultimately confirmed the order of acquittal. Above said observations are squarely applicable to the case in hand. 8. In the circumstances the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/NOV09/crap284.99