JUDGMENT - A.D. TATED, J.:---This State appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondent of the offence punishable under section 7(v) read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, in Criminal Case No. 1470 of 1981. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the respondent are fully stated by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in his judgment and for decisions of this appeal it is not necessary to reproduce all those facts. 3. On 7th May, 1981 the accused was found selling orange sarbat on his hand cart. The Food Inspector obtained the sample. It was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst found that it contained saccharin, a non-permitted artificial sweetener. Therefore, the accused was prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. The learned trial Magistrate found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the saccharin was used in the sarbat beyond the proportion allowed under Appendix 'B' to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and, therefore, he acquitted the respondent accused. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the trial Magistrate was not right in acquitting the accused but, he is not able to show how the learned Magistrate was wrong in relying upon the decision of his Court in (State of Maharashtra v. Ranjibhai Babubhai Suratwalla)1 1979 F.A.J. 231. The same decision is reported in 1979 Food Adulteration Journal page 231. We have gone through the said decision and we find that the same is applicable to the facts of the present case. Saccharin is as artificial sweeten. In order to show that the respondent exceeded the proportion of saccharin to be used as an artificial sweetener, the prosecution has not examined the chemical analyser and it has not been proved that the sarbat with saccharin, an artificial sweeten, was injurious to the health. We find that the learned trial Magistrate has rightly relied upon the above mentioned decision and acquitted the accused and we see no reason to interfere with the said decision. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Bail bounds to stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed. -----