1 (Cr.appeal 583/01) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.583 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra .... Appellant. V/s Gurunath Dattatraya Chillal and another .... Respondents. Mrs M.R. Tidake, APP for the appellant – State. None for the respondents, though served. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 13th September, 2010 P.C. 1. State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal against acquittal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby the respondents – original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 2(ia)(a), read with section 7(i) and section 7(v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 29 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 and Section 7(ii) read with section 2(ix)(d) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) & (ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. With the assistance of the learned APP appearing on 2 (Cr.appeal 583/01) behalf of the State, I have perused the judgment and order of the Trial Court as also the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 3. Prosecution has examined two witnesses. Prosecution case is that the accused No.1 is the vendor and accused No. 2 is the proprietor of M/s Parampara Food Products situated at Pune. The accused were carrying on business of manufacturing and selling food articles including an article known as veg. Jaipuri mix. According to the complainant, he, along with an independent witness, visited the premises and purchased six packets of 100 grams of veg. Jaipuri mix from accused No.1 and the procedure laid down under the Act for sealing the said sample was carried out. One sample was sent to P.A., Pune. A report was received from P.A., Pune in which it was stated that synthetic food colour was not in accordance with the standard fixed by the Act. After obtaining consent, prosecution was launched and two witnesses were examined. 4. Trial Court, after perusing the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that there was breach of mandatory Rules 14, 15 and 16(d) of PFA Rules, 1955. It has also observed that the sanctioning authority has granted sanction without any application of mind. He has taken into consideration the reported judgments of various High Courts on this point. Perusal of the evidence clearly shows that the Trial Court has properly recorded its finding of non- 3 (Cr.appeal 583/01) compliance of the aforesaid rules. The sanction letter also indicates that there is clear non-application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. No case is, therefore, made out for interfering with the order of the Trial Court while exercising jurisdiction of this Court under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (Cr.appeal 583/01)