1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.204 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra ..... Appellant V/s Shri Balasaheb Jamba Adake ...... Respondent. ---- Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the appellant - State. Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for the respondent. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 5th December, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned APP appearing on behalf of the appellant - State. 2. State has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who, by his judgment and order dated 28/11/1995, was pleased to acquit the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under sections 7(i) read with 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(b) and 7(v) read with Rule 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and under section 16 of the said Act. 3. Prosecution case is that the complainant had visited the New Peria Ice Cream Factory situated at Ward No.10, House No.422, Satpute Galli, Ichalkaranji on 23/6/1988 at 1.30 p.m.. At that time, panch Shamrao Hemant Saraf was present 2 with the complainant. The complainant inspected the premises and purchased 600 gms of ice candy which was kept in the refrigerator of the accused. The complainant paid Rs 3/- and obtained a receipt for the purchase of the said ice candy. Thereafter, sample of the ice candy was taken and it was divided into three parts. He added 16 drops of formalin and after labeling the three bottles and obtaining signatures of the panch and accused, took possession of the said bottles. One bottle was sent to Public Analyst, District Public Health Laboratory, Kolhapur on 23/6/1988 and two other bottles were sent to Local Health Authority, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Ichalkaranji. A report was sent by the Public Analyst in which he had stated that the sample sent by the complainant - Food Inspector did not conform to the standard of ice candy. An application was made to the Joint Commissioner, Pune Division for sanction to prosecute the accused and, after the sanction was granted by the competent authority, a complaint was lodged in Ichalkaranji Court. Charge was framed against the accused. In the charge, it was stated that the ice candy which was seized from the factory of the accused contained saccharin which was not as per the standard prescribed by the Act and, therefore, it was alleged that there was contravention of section 7 of the said Act. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined two witnesses viz the complainant - B.G. Londhe, Food Inspector, Food & Drug Administration and one panch witness who had accompanied the complainant. 4. The Trial Court, after going through the evidence of 3 the complainant and the panch witness and also report of the Public Analyst, came to the conclusion that no opinion was given by the Public Analyst about the percentage of saccharin which was found in the ice candy. The Trial Court has observed that Public Analyst in his report has merely stated that the ice candy did not conform to the standard of ice candy as per . 07.04.01 of Appendix 'B' of P.F.A. Rules, 1955. The Food Inspector also, in his cross-examination, admitted that the percentage of saccharin which was found in the sample was not mentioned. The Trial Court also further observed that the procedure which was laid down under the said Act for collecting the sample was not followed. The Trial Court, therefore, on this two grounds acquitted the accused. 5. In my view, no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the Trial Court. Report of the Public Analyst which is at Exhibit-53 merely states that the sample of ice candy does not conform to the standard of ice candy. The charge which was framed against the accused was that the sample of ice candy indicated that percentage of saccharin was not as per the standard prescribed under the said Act. The opinion given by the Public Analyst, therefore, does not support the case of the prosecution. In the report of the Public Analyst, he has merely stated that in the test which was conducted saccharin was found. However, percentage has not been given. The view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible view. No case is made out for interfering with the said order while exercising jurisdiction of this Court under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4 Appeal, therefore, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)