( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2545 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2543 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Shri Yogesh s/o Narayanrao Alkatwar and another. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the applicant/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 9th September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. These are applications for condonation of delay and for leave to appeal. 2. As far as application for condonation of delay is concerned, the delay is of 23 days. The reasons for delay have been explained in paragraph No. 2 of the application. The delay appears to be unintentional and the same is on account of official difficulties. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is ( 2 ) condoned and the application for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed. 3. The appeal is preferred against judgement of acquittal rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded in criminal case bearing R.C.C. No. 768/1999. 4. The respondents were tried for offences punishable under section 7 (i) read with section 2 (ia) (a), section 2 (ia) (c) and section 2 (ia) (m) and section 7 (v) read with Rule 44 and punishable under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, “the PFA Act”). 5. The case of prosecution is that on 20th March, 1998, the complainant (Food Inspector) visited hotel of the respondents at about 1400 Hrs. The complainant was accompanied by a panch witness. He collected sample of biryani and also purchased 450 grams of groundnut oil which was meant for use for preparation of the biryani. ( 3 ) The oil was divided in three (3) parts and was poured in three different clean, empty and dry bottles. The Food Inspector prepared samples and sent one of the samples alongwith Form No. VII and specimen seal to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst revealed that the groundnut oil did not conform to the prescribed standard. After following due procedure, the respondents were prosecuted vide the private complaint case instituted by the Food Inspector. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate noticed that the Food Inspector did not properly collect sample of groundnut oil. He held that the Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 have been breached. The version of the Food Inspector (PW1) revealed that the groundnut oil was found stored in a pot placed in the kitchen room. There was no label on the pot. He admitted that while collecting the sample of the oil, it was not stirred so as to make the sample homogeneous and, therefore, the sample was not representative of the bulk. The Food Inspector did not use his own flask for measurement. The oil was measured ( 4 ) by using the measuring flask found in the hotel of the respondents. The division of the oil sample was also effected with help of the measuring flask borrowed from the respondent No.1. The Food Inspector did not specify that the measuring flask was clean and dry before it was used. The admitted fact is that the groundnut oil was not stored for the purpose of sale as such. Allegedly, it was meant for preparation of eatables in the restaurant. Nobody saw that the same edible oil was being used by the respondents at the relevant time. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgement of acquittal need not be interfered with. The reasons ascribed by the learned Magistrate appear to be proper. Hence, the leave to appeal is refused. The application is dismissed. Consequently, the criminal appeal stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln2545-09