IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.288 OF 1998 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Narendra Tulshidas Popat .. Respondent Ms.A.T.Jhaveri for the appellant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 21st March 2009. : 21st March 2009. : 21st March 2009. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: . Heard learned A.P.P for the appellant. The respondent was prosecuted for the offences under section 7(i), 7(v) and section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The respondent was running a dairy and sweetmeat shop. On 03rd October 1992 P.W.No.2 Balasaheb Kharade (Food Inspector) alongwith panch witness Shabbir Hakimbhai (P.W.No.3) and sampling assistant one Mr.Ghode visited the shop of the respondent. P.W.No.1 complainant demanded and purchased 1500 gms of Elaichi Kesar Shrikhand and paid the price against a receipt. He divided the purchased food item into three equal parts of 500 gms each and filled the same in three clean, dry and empty glass bottles. He added certain (2) drops of formalin as a preservative. The bottles were closed by plastic threads and seal was fixed on the each bottle. The samples were sent for analysis. The report of the analyst was that the food item contained tatrazine plus carmosine dye and the food item did not confirm to the standards prescribed under the said Rules. Therefore, after obtaining consent, a complaint was filed and the respondent accused was charged. One of the grounds on which order of acquittal has been passed by the learned Magistrate is that mandatory provisions of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 have not been complied with as it is not established that the samples were taken in clean and dry bottles. The learned A.P.P submitted that impugned order is perverse in as much as the P.W.No.1 has categorically deposed that the samples were taken in clean and dry bottles. She submitted that even the panchnama support the said case. She submitted that the impugned order is perverse and needs to be interfered with. 2. I have considered the submissions and perused the notes of evidence and the impugned judgment. It is true that P.W.No.2 Mr.Balasaheb Kharade in his examination-in-chief has stated that the samples were (3) filled in dry, clean and empty bottles. He stated that he had taken the bottles from his office a day prior to the day of drawing sample. He stated that the bottles were cleaned on the same day by his assistant Mr.Ghode. He stated that no entry in respect of cleaning of the bottles is made in his office. Perusal of the record shows that the said person who according to P.W.No.2 had cleaned the bottles was not examined as a witness. 3. As the P.W.No.2 has admittedly not cleaned the bottles and as person who cleaned the bottles had not been examined as a witness, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ram Dubey in Criminal Appeal No.98 of 1996 decided on 15th April 1997 the learned Judge was justified in drawing the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove compliance with Rule 14 of the said Rules. Rule 14 has been held to be mandatory. 4. In view of this position, the order of acquittal cannot be faulted with. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (A.S.Oka,J)