State Of Maharashtra vs Shri Ashok Bhagchand Motwani And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6701 Bom

                                        1                                       apeal719.02




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 719 OF 2002


 State of Maharashtra, 
 through the Food Inspector Shri R.B. Rithe,
 Food and Drug Administration, M.S. Akola.                               ....
 APPELLANT


                     VERSUS


 1) Shri Ashok Bhagchand Motwani,
     Aged about 45 years, 
     Vendor of M/s Shree Ganesh Industries
     Phase II, Plot No.F-45, M.I.D.C., Akola.

 2) Murlidhar Motiram Panjwani,
     Proprietor, Aged 50 years, 
     M/s Shree Ganesh Industries, Phase-II,
     Plot No.F-45, M.I.D.C., Akola.                             ....       RESPONDENTS


 ______________________________________________________________

           Smt. M.H. Deshmukh, Addl.P.P. for the appellant, 
             Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents.
  ______________________________________________________________

                              CORAM :  ROHIT B. DEO, J.

                            DATED    :    1
                                               SEPTEMBER, 2017
                                            st



 ORAL JUDGMENT : 

The appellant/State is aggrieved by the judgment and

order dated 09-4-2002 in Regular Criminal Case 923/1994 delivered

2 apeal719.02

by 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, by and under which the

respondents/accused are acquitted of offence punishable under Section

16(1)(a)(i) read with Sections 7(i) of the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act, 1954.

2. The learned Magistrate has recorded a finding of fact that

the food sample confirms with the standard laid down in Item A-05-20-

01 of Appexdix-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

The reasoning of the learned Magistrate is to be found in paragraph 17

of the judgment impugned. The reasoning is not erroneous muchless

perverse.

3. The learned Magistrate has also recorded a finding that

the sanction order Exhibit 66 is not in accordance with law and is

vitiated due to non-application of mind.

4. I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of

acquittal. The appeal is sans merits and is rejected.

                                                                           JUDGE

adgokar




                                3                            apeal719.02