JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---This is an appeal against acquittal. 2. In prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (for short 'the Act') relating to ground-nut oil, the trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under section 7(i) read with section 2(ia)(a) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Appeal of the accused there from was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the impugned conviction and sentence was set aside and the accused was acquitted. Hence his appeal against acquittal. 3. Going through the judgment of the two courts below which have taken of the evidence and the record differing views and hearing Mr. Phanse, Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Throat, learned Advocate for the respondent-accused, we find this to be a case which does not warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. Reappreciating the evidence we would perhaps have been inclined to prefer the reasoning and conclusion of the learned trial Magistrate to that of the Appellate Court. That, however, is no ground or justification for interfering in an acquittal appeal. 4. As indicated, the article of food was ground-nut oil. The report of the Public Analyst shows the deficiency as marginal. There was no extraneous ingredient or material therein. In most respects the article contained ingredients within the permissible limits. The panch witness admitted that he was unable to give the weight of the sample bottles nor was he able to say the type and or size thereof. He also admitted that no envelopes were used. He further admitted that his brother was prosecuted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In these circumstances the Appellate Court was right in not considering him as an independent witness. Indeed, as rightly observed by the Appellate Court, this witness must have been under the pressure of the Food Inspector in view of the prosecution launched against this witness's brother. Still further, the Food Inspector himself has admitted that the bottles in which samples were collected were not cleaned by him but were cleaned by his assistant one Mr. Salunkhe. This Salunke has not been examined. But what is more, the Food Inspector admits that this cleaning was done one week prior to the collection of the sample. 5. Still further, the Food Inspector himself has admitted that the bottles in which samples were collected were not cleaned by him but were cleaned by his assistant one Mr. Salunkhe. This Salunke has not been examined. But what is more, the Food Inspector admits that this cleaning was done one week prior to the collection of the sample. 5. In paragraph 14 of its judgment the Appellate Court has relied upon a ruling of this Court holding that the fact that the bottles were dry, clean and empty could be proved by examination of the assistant who is alleged to have done that part of the work. Then again, it has been observed that the report of the Public Analyst does not disclose as to when the analysis took place. This because between the receipt of the sample and the issuance of the report more than one month has passed by. In this behalf the Appellate Court relied upon certain further rulings of this Court. The same are cited in paragraph 16 of its judgment. It is in these circumstances difficult to hold that the view taken by the Appellate Court is not plausible or a possible view of the matter. If it is a plausible and possible view of the matter and that constitutes the basis of the acquittal on question, it is not possible nor open to this Court interfere in an acquittal appeal on the ground that another view of the matter was also plausible or possible and this another view should have been taken. 6. As observed by the Supreme Court in (Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra)1, A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 135: “Where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below. In other words, if the main grounds on which the Court below has based its order acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plausible, and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal.” 7. In all the circumstances, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere. 8. In the result the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----