(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 4761 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through Food Inspector, .. Applicant Food & Drug Admn., [Original Aurangabad. complainant] versus Bhimraj Punjaji Sonwane, Tilak Road, Vaijapur, Taluka : Vaijapur, .. Respondent District : Aurangabad. [Original accused] ....................... Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the applicant. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant / State seeking leave to file appeal challenging judgment and order dated 7-5-2010, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Vaijapur, in Regular Criminal Case No. 166/1998, thereby acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offences punishable under Section 7(i), read with Section 2(ia)(a), Section 2(ia)(m) and Section 7(v), read with Section 29, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) & 16(1)(a)(i) & Section 7(v), read with Section 50, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) & Section 14- A, punishable under Section 16(1-c) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 3. The matter pertains to alleged stocking and selling of adulterated groundnut oil, without license, by the accused on 25-9-1997 at about 11.30 a.m., in contravention of the provisions of Food Adulteration Act. 4. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, Changdeo (PW 1), who has turned hostile and did not support the (3) prosecution, and Gopal (PW 2), Food Inspector. 5. After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial court has observed that the LHA is not examined by the prosecution and, therefore, the letter by LHA to Food Inspector Gopal Pathak (PW 2) for submission of PA report and letter to accused from LHA stating that, report is not confirmed to the standard, and therefore, complaint lodged bearing No. 166/98 and accused may be sent one sample for analysis to Central Food Laboratory is not believable. It is also observed by the learned trial court, that Gopal (PW 2), Food Inspector, himself has stated that report of Central Food Laboratory is not on record inspite accused has applied as per Exhibit 5 for sending sample to Central Food Laboratory. It is further observed by the learned trial court, that as the accused has not admitted PA report nor examined LHA, therefore, PA report is not proved and as no Central Food Laboratory report is on record, it cannot be said that sample of groundnut oil was adulterated, and accordingly, held the accused as not guilty and acquitted him, and apparently the said observations cannot be faulted with. 6. Considering the aforesaid view adopted by the learned trial court, after analyzing the evidence on record, while (4) acquitting the accused, is a possible view and the same does not appear to be perverse and hence, no interference therein is called for, in appellate jurisdiction and, therefore, present application being devoid of merits deserves to be rejected. 7. In the result, present Criminal Application which is sans merits, stands dismissed, and leave to file appeal is refused. 8. Record and proceedings be sent to concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka4761