1 crap3182.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3182 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra, through Food Inspector, Jalna ...Applicant [Orig.Complainant] VERSUS Dipesh Prafullachandra Bharwada and anr. ...Respondent [Orig.Accused] ..... Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. for applicant Shri A.S.Bajaj, advocate for respondent no. 1 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 13th December, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant (original complainant), seeking leave to file appeal, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.1.2011, rendered by the learned 2 crap3182.11 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, in R.C.C. No. 152 of 1999, thereby acquitting the respondents (original accused) from the charges under Sections 7 (1) r/w Section 2 (ia) 2(ia)(m) and Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3 I have perused the impugned judgment and order, dated 31.1.2011 and the R. and P. with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 4 Admittedly, the accused no.1 is the vendor of “Prafulla Agencies, Jalna” and accused no.2 is the proprietor of the said agency, who are the vendors of food article Glycon (Instant Energy Drink) stocked for sale and they are not the manufacturers thereof and they have produced the bills of purchase thereof at Exh. 16. Moreover, the samples thereof were collected in packed packet and sealed condition, and hence, the Trial Court has rightly gave benefit under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to the said accused persons. Moreover, as regards the compliance of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it is material to note that the three postal acknowledgments produced on record by the prosecution at Exhs. 96, 97 and 98 do not bear the postal stamp and simply bears the stamp of Prafulla Agencies, Jalna, which leads to the position that no show cause notice and 3 crap3182.11 Public Analyst’s report were not sent to the accused persons herein. 5 Moreover, it also appears that the consent order Exh. 83 is not proper and valid, because the sanctioning authority is Incharge Joint Commissioner and not the Joint Commissioner and the said Incharge Joint Commissioner has not been empowered to give consent in such cases to prosecute the accused persons and the observations made to that effect by the learned Trial Court are apparently proper. 6 Moreover, it also appears that the Public Analyst’s report has been sent after 44 days, and hence, there is apparent non- compliance of Rule 7 (3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and the observations made to that effect that by the learned Trial Court also cannot be faulted with. 7 In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and analysing the evidence on record, the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges levdelled against the accused cannot be faulted with, and the view adopted by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused is a possible view, which does not appear to be perverse. Moreover, the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court while arriving at the 4 crap3182.11 said conclusion also apparently does not appear to be erroneous, and hence, no interference therein is called for in the appellate jurisdiction, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 8 In the result, present application, which is sans merits, stands dismissed and leave to file appeal is refused. R. and P. be sent back to the concerned court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap3182.11