1 Cri.Appln.No.4560/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4560 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Kailash Trilokchand Chudiwal & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri T.S. Lodhe, A.P.P. for the applicant/State Shri P.K. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri H.F. Pawar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6 ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 26th August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused the application and record. 2. Application is already dismissed as against respondent No.3. Learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to 6 submitted that, for want of any incriminating material in the evidence, the learned trial Court had dispensed with the examination of the accused 2 to 6 as per Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He further pointed out from the testimony of P.W.1 Sudam Nandanwar, Food Inspector that, at the material time, the sample was drawn from unlabelled barrel of oil, 2 Cri.Appln.No.4560/2010 which was kept in the shop for sale along with other oils. These circumstances in evidence, he submitted, had prompted the learned trial Court to overlook the original purchase bill (Exh. 122), which purported to show the purchase of refined cotton oil, the oil in question from the accused Nos.2 to 6. The appeal memo lacks any agitation regarding the learned trial Court skipping the examination of the accused Nos.2 to 6 as per Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Leave to pursue appeal against respondent Nos.2 and 4 to 6 is refused. However, leave is granted so far as the respondent/ accused No.1 is concerned. 4. Appeal admitted so far as the respondent/ accused No. 1 is concerned. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 waives service of notice of the appeal. Paper Book be prepared. 5. Action under Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code to follow against respondent No.1. 6. Application stands disposed off accordingly. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/cri4560.10