State Of Maharashtra vs Shri Ashok Bhagchand Motwani And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6705 Bom

                                        1                                       apeal 709.02




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 709/2002


 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,
     Age 45 years, Occupation - Vendor 
     of M/s. Shree Ganesh Industries, 
     Phase-II, Plot No.F-45, M.I.D.C., 
     Akola.

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

 ______________________________________________________________

            Shri A.V. Palshikar, Addl.P.P. for the appellant, 
                       None 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 1273/1996 delivered

2 apeal 709.02

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

respondents/accused are acquitted of offence punishable under Section

16(1)(a)(ii) read with Sections 7(vi) ans 2(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

and 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 9 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 18 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