J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-Stale has questioned the legality and validity of the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Patan in Criminal Case No. 1803 of 1983 on 10. 6. 1983 by invoking the aids of provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (the Code for short hereinafter ). ( 2 ) THE respondent is the original accused who was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (i) and 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 in the aforesaid trial. The complainant who was working as a Food Inspector at the relevant time had visited the shop of the accused on 17. 3. 1983 and had purchased a sample of Methi after completing the required procedures for the collection of the sample. The sample of food (Methi) was sent to the Public Analyst. According to the report of the Public Analyst the sample was found to be adulterated. Therefore the aforesaid complaint was filed by the Food Inspector against the accused. ( 3 ) UPON appreciation and assessment of the evidence the learned Trial Magistrate reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the acquittal was recorded. Hence this acquittal appeal at the instance of the original complainant - Food Inspector. ( 4 ) HAVING examined the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record it cannot be contended even for a moment that the impugned acquittal order is in any way unreasonable or perverse. The view of the Trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable in acquitting the accused. The ultimate conclusion of acquittal does not appear to be perverse. Nothing has been successfully pointed out which would warrant the interference of this Court in this acquittal appeal where the scope is very much circumscribed. ( 5 ) THE scope and powers of this Court in an acquittal appeal is very much limited and it is a settled proposition of law that unless and until perversity is successfully pointed out or unreasonableness in the assessment of the evidence is successfully spelt out it would not be advisable and safe for the Appellate Court to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Awadhesh vs. State of M. P. reported in AIR 1988 SC 1158 acquittal should not be interfered with lightly unless the view taken by the Trial Court is perverse or unreasonable. ( 6 ) SINCE this Court broadly agrees with the ultimate conclusion and the views adopted by the Trial Court it would not be necessary to reiterate the reasons upon which the acquittal is founded. This proposition of law is also very well settled by following two decisions of the Apex Court: (1) Stale of Karnataka vs. Hemareddy AIR 1981 SC 1417 And Girijanandini Devi vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary AIR 1967 SC 1124 . ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record this Court has no hesitation in holding that this appeal is totally meritless and is required to be dismissed. Hence this appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. .