1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4221 OF 2009 Mrs. B.R.Khekale, A.P.P. for State. Mr. Joydeep Chatarjee, Advocate for respondent no. 1. [ CORAM : P.R.BORKAR, J. ] DATE : 09/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mrs. B.R.Khekale, A.P.P. for State and Mr. Joydeep Chatarjee, Advocate for respondent no. 1. 2. This is an application for leave to file Appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the J.M.F.C., Partur in R.C.C. No. 263 of 2000 decided on 14/5/2009, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 16 (1) (a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The brief facts are as under : On 8/1/2008 at about 2.30 p.m., the Food Inspector Mr. R.V.Kulkarni and Mr. T.C. Boralkar visited shop premises named and styled as M/s Vaibhav Kirana, Balani Mandir road, Partur for inspection. They took sample of ‘ Dillagi Gutakha’. The respondent no. 1 2 was the proprietor and vendor of the shop raided whereas respondent no. 2 is the proprietor of the firm namely M/s Varsha Tobacco Stores, Mahatma Phule Market, Jalna, who had supplied Gutkha to the respondent no. 1. It is stated that 50 pouches weighing 110 Gms. were in different packets and 6 of such packets were purchased by the Food Inspector and thereafter carried out the procedure as per law. It is the say of the prosecution that it was adulterated article and, therefore, both the accused have committed the offence. 4. The report of Public Analyst at Exh. 54 dated 16/2/1998 is to the effect that the sample of Dillagi Gutkha contained Clacium Carbonate and Magnesium Carbonate and hence contravenes Rule 62 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The label of sample does not bear the warning that chewing of Supari is injurious to health as per Rule 48 ( zzz ) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 5. The acquittal is recorded by the Magistrate on various grounds and one of the main grounds mentioned is that no standard of Gutaka is prescribed by Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and reliance was placed on the case of M.V.Krishnan V/s State of Kerala reported in A.I.R. 1966 Supreme Court – 1976. In that case, it was held by the Supreme Court that person selling food article for which no standard is prescribed in the P.F.A. Act or Rules can not be convicted 3 U/s 16 (1) (a) of the Act for contravention of Section 7. 6. I also rely on the case of Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. V/s Union of India AIR 2004 SC 405, in which it is held that State Govt. can not prescribe standard in respect of Gutaka and it is only the Central Govt., which can prescribe the standard for Gutaka or Pan Masala. 7. After going through the Judgment of the trial Court and after hearing Mrs. B.R. Khekale, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Joydeep Chatarjee, the learned Advocate for respondent no. 1, I am of the view that this is not a case, which is fit for granting leave to file Appeal against the acquittal. The view taken by the trial Court is reasonable. Hence, the present application is dismissed. [ P.R.BORKAR ] JUDGE knp/Cri. Apln. 4221.09