- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.711 OF 1997 APPEAL NO.711 OF 1997 APPEAL NO.711 OF 1997 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant vs. Amrutlal Savla and others ...Respondents Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for State Mr.Ramesh V. Hirlekar for Respondent Nos.1,2,4,5 and 7. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 16,2009 : MARCH 16,2009 : MARCH 16,2009 JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned A.P.P. for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondents. The respondents have been prosecuted under section 7 (i) r/w section 2 (ia) (a) 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The acquittal of the respondents is on the ground of non compliance with the mandatory provisions of law. The learned Trial Judge found that compliance was not made with the requirement of sub clause (i) of clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954. The learned Judge has referred to the evidence of P.W.1 who was a Clerk attached to Local Health Authority. He admitted that an intimation as required by sub clause (i) of clause (c) of sub section (1) of 11 of the said Act of 1954 was not received by the Local Health Authority. Even the complainant admitted in his evidence that the said compliance was not made. - 2 - 2. The compliance with the said requirement of sending intimation to the Local Health Authority is a mandatory requirement as held by by the Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohiddin Gaibi Chougule [2001 All M.R. (Cri.) 1533]. The finding regarding non compliance with the said mandatory requirement is based on the admission of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the order of acquittal on the said ground cannot be faulted with. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE