1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1853 OF 2009 Shri S.S.Yadav, Food Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Beed. ...Applicant (orig. complainant) VERSUS Radhakishan Narhariappa Shengule and others ...Respondents ..... Smt. B.R.Khekale, A.P.P. for the applicant Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Respondent nos. 3 and 4 served. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 30 th July, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Smt B.R.Khekale, APP for the applicant and Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking 2 leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.2008, rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambajogai, District Beed, in Regular Criminal Case No. 161 of 1993 acquitting the respondents (original accused) for the offence punishable under Section 16(1(a)((i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 3 I have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 31.12.2008 as well as perused the record and proceedings with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. 4 In short, the case of prosecution is that accused no.1 Radhakishan Narhariappa Shengule had purchased the chilly powder in question from accused no.2; whereas accused no.3 is the Director of respondent no.4 , the manufacturer of said chilly powder. One Ugale was working as Food Inspector from the year 1988 to 1992 and on 17.9.1992 at about 4.00 p.m. in the presence of panch witness Manmath Kalshetty, he visited the shop of accused no.1 and purchased three chilly powder packets of 200 gms. each as sample from the shop of accused no.1 for the purpose of analysis and drew the panchanama in presence of panch witness. According to the prosecution, thereafter on 18.9.1992 one of the part of the sample of the chilly powder was sent to the Public Analyst, Health 3 Laboratory, Pune for analysis purpose, and the report dated 21.10.2992 thereof was received and the said sample of chilly powder did not conform with the with the standards of chilly powder as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Hence, accused nos. 1 to 4 faced the trial for the offences as afore said. 5 Prosecution examined in as much as three witnesses i.e. PW1 Food Inspector Yadav, PW2 Food Inspector Ugale, and PW3 Assistant Commissioner and prosecution also relied upon the report of the public analyst Exh.63, consent Exh.40 and other relevant documents. After scrutinizing the said evidence on record, learned trial Judge arrived at a conclusion that respondents/accused are not guilty for the offences charged against them and acquitted them of the said charges by judgment and order as afore stated. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order, the applicant/State has preferred the present application seeking leave to file appeal. 6 After analysing the evidence on record, learned trial Judge has observed in the judgment that the public analyst report Exh. 63 suffers from the infirmities and vagueness and opinion of the public analyst has not been reflected in the said report. It is also observed that although according to the public analyst extraneous 4 red and orange oil soluble colours were detected in sample, but in his report he has not given its quantity and it is also not contended whether it is injuries to the health of public at large. The said report also nowhere states that the said food article chilly powder was adulterated one. Similarly, it does not show as to on what date the said sample was analysed, and consequently came to the conclusion that on the basis of said report Exh. 63, it is very difficult to hold that food article chilly powder was adulterated one. 7 As regards the consent Exh. 40, learned trial Judge has observed that from the persual of the said consent, it appears that there is no application of mind on the part of the concerned Joint Commissioner, since no reasons are recorded therein as to why launching of prosecution against the accused is necessary in the public interest and the fact of not recording the reasons, appear to be fatal to the said consent Exh. 40. Accordingly, learned trial Judge arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused persons and acquitted them for the charges levelled against them. 8 On perusal of the contents of the impugned judgment as well as on perusal of the documentary evidence adduced and produced on record by the prosecution and after considering the 5 rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the view taken by the learned trial Judge appears to be a possible view to be taken after considering the evidence on record and the reasons adopted therefor cannot be faulted with. Moreover, the said view adopted by the learned trial Judge also does not appear to be perverse, and hence, no interference therein is warranted, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. The application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal stands refused. R. and Ps. be sent back to the trial court concerned. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1853.09