1 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.439 OF 1996. Pune Municipal Corporation, Shivajinagar, Pune :411 005. Through Shri Kantilal Bhojaraj Nahar, Occupation Service  Inspector, Age About 56 years, Appellant/Orig.Complainant. Versus 1. Shri Jogaram Krishnaji Chaudhary, Age about 31 years, Occupation : Business, Resident of Survey No.12, Laxminagar, Yerwada, Pune. 2. The State of Maharashtra. Respondents. Shri Rajdeep S. Khadapkar, Advocate for the Appellant. None for Respondent No.1. Ms M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J. DATE : 9th July,2009. ORAL JUDGMENT. 1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Khadapkar appearing 2 for the Municipal Corporation, Pune. None for Respondent No.1 and as such there is no opportunity for this Court to hear the arguments on behalf of respondent no.1  acquitted accused. 2. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the appellant, this Court has gone through the record and proceeding of this short matter. In the present matter, respondent  original accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 7 (ii) read with section 16 (i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 50 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962. Such impugned judgment and order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C. (P.M.C.),Pune on 25.4.1994. 3. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, the case of the prosecution in nut-shell can be summarized. According to the complainant, one Kantilal Bhojraj Nahar, Inspector of P.M.C.,Food visited the grocery Shop of respondent No.1 - accused at Yerwada Laxminagar, Pune on 29th March, 1987 at 11:30 a.m. At that time, a sort of panchnama was conducted in presence of two panch witnesses, during which inquiry was made with the respondent No.1-accused as to whether he had any licence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for storing and selling the food 3 articles such as grams, mung, pulses, half can of groundnut oil and other confectionery such as biscuits and troffies. Admittedly, nothing was seized from the said shop. After conducting the panchnama necessary sanction for prosecution was obtained and complaint was lodged in March, 1988 i.e.,after about one year. During recording of evidence in the summary trial the complainant, Food Inspector examined himself and stated as to his visits to the said shop on 26th March, 1987 and conducting of the panchnama. Except this evidence, there is no other evidence brought before the Court by any oral testimony of panch or independent witness. During the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., of the accused it appears that the respondent No.1-accused had answered to the question: It has come in the evidence of P.W.No.1 that on 26.3.1987 he visited your Jagadamba Dhanya Bhandar and found that you were running your shop without Health licence. What have you to say about it? 4. To the above question, the Respondent No.1- accused answered in the affirmative. Much emphasis was placed by the learned Advocate for the appellant on such answer given by the accused. However, factual position 4 still remains that the panch was not examined though panchnama was admitted i.e.,the execution of the panchnama was admitted and not the contents of the same, as reasoned in the impugned judgment and order. It is also a significant aspect and which is emphasized by the Trial Court that the complaint mentions regarding the visit to the shop on 29th March,1987 whereas P.W.No.1 mentions regarding his visit on 26th March, 1987. Admittedly, as mentioned above, nothing has been seized from the said shop and panch was not examined and case is based only on the sole testimony of P.W.No.1. 5. Considering the above factual position and considering that the acquittal was effected in the year 1994 and the alleged offence is of the year 1987, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to have a different view than the another possible view taken shelter of by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused. Under such circumstances, no much emphasis can be placed on the answer given by the respondent-accused in 313 statement and consequently it must be said that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Hence, the present appeal is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) 5