J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-State has challenged the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Dabhoi on 21. 2. 1984 in Criminal Case No. 974/83 with the help of the provisions of section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Code for short hereinafter ). ( 2 ) THE respondents herein are the original accused persons who came to be tried by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (k) (i) 17 (1) (a) 18 (1) (c) and 29 (1) of (The) Insecticides Act 1968 (Act for short ). On appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record the trial court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore all the accused persons came to be acquitted from the aforesaid charges against them. Hence this acquittal appeal. A few material facts giving rise to the present appeal may be shortly stated at this stage. ( 3 ) THE original complainant Mr. A. H. Patel who was working as an Agricultural Inspector at the relevant time visited the shop of accused No. 1 on 19. 8. 1982 and took sample of insecticide known as Peretheon 2% Powder when the accused No. 2-Chimanbhai Maganbhai Patel was present. The said insecticide was divided into three parts and one of them was sent to the Public Analyst for testing at Junagadh on 20. 8. 1982. The complainant contended that he had purchased the said sample of insecticide in presence of accused No. 2 as per rules and had divided it into three parts and sealed them separately. The report of the Public Analyst under Section 24 of the Act indicated that the said insecticide was sub-standard and was not conforming the prescribed standard. Therefore the complainant who was also working as Insecticides Inspector issued show cause notices to accused nos. 3 4 5 and 6. Accused No. 2 was a partner of accused No. 1. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased the said insecticide from accused Nos. 3 and 4. Accused No. 4 is the partner of accused No. 3. Accused No. 5 is a manufacturing company and accused No. 6 is an authorised officer of accused No. 5. 3 4 5 and 6. Accused No. 2 was a partner of accused No. 1. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased the said insecticide from accused Nos. 3 and 4. Accused No. 4 is the partner of accused No. 3. Accused No. 5 is a manufacturing company and accused No. 6 is an authorised officer of accused No. 5. According to the complainant after obtaining requisite sanction he instituted the criminal complaint in the trial court against the accused persons for the aforesaid alleged offences on 9. 5. 1983. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances the trial court held the accused persons not guilty. Hence this appeal. ( 4 ) THE very purpose and the design of the Act is to regulate the import manufacture sale transport distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals. Subsequent to the poisoning cases in 1958 in Kerala and Madras and in case of food poisoning of 1962 in West Bengal and considering the recommendations of the Inquiry Commission the Parliament made certain serious provisions in the Act to achieve the aforesaid objects. Unfortunately the offences under the provisions of the Act at times are not seriously viewed and after filing of cases are not seriously proved and the case on hand is one of such cases. ( 5 ) THE accused persons were charged for the offences punishable under sections 3 (k) (i) 17 (1) (a) 18 (1) (c) And 29 (1) of the Act. Section 3 (k) (i) provides definition of the expression misbranded and it defines that- an insecticide shall be deemed to be misbranded if its label containing any statement design or graphic representation relating thereto which is false or misleading in any material particular or if its package is otherwise deceptive in respect of its contents. In view of Section 3 (1s) (i) there is a prohibition to deal with any misbranded insecticide under section 17 (1) (a ). All the accused persons were alleged to have committed offence under this provision. They were also charged for having committed the offence under section 18 (1) (c) of the Act under which there is a prohibition of sale of certain insecticides. ( 6 ) SECTION 24 of the Act provides for the report of Insecticide Analyst. All the accused persons were alleged to have committed offence under this provision. They were also charged for having committed the offence under section 18 (1) (c) of the Act under which there is a prohibition of sale of certain insecticides. ( 6 ) SECTION 24 of the Act provides for the report of Insecticide Analyst. According to the original complainant the accused persons were guilty for the aforesaid offences which are punishable under Section 29 (1) (a) of the Act which prescribes for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both. Unfortunately the offences were not seriously proved though they appear to be serious in nature. There is no dispute about the fact that in view of the provisions of section 31 of the Act consent of the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government is required to be obtained for filing of the prosecution. Section 31 of the Act reads as under:"31 Cognizance and trial of offences (1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the Stale Government". ( 7 ) IT is an admitted fact that written consent for the purpose of filing of prosecution as required under section 31 (1) of the Act was not obtained in so far as the accused Nos. 2 4 and 6 are concerned. Unfortunately no serious attempt was made in the trial court to prove the serious charges against the accused persons. The conclusion of the learned trial Magistrate that the prosecution has failed to prove the complicity of the accused persons for the aforesaid offences under the Act beyond reasonable doubt cannot be said to be unjustified or perverse. Learned A. P. P. while appearing for the Stale has not been able to indicate any material which would warrant the interference of this court in an appeal under Section 378 of the Code wherein the scope is very much limited. Learned A. P. P. while appearing for the Stale has not been able to indicate any material which would warrant the interference of this court in an appeal under Section 378 of the Code wherein the scope is very much limited. ( 8 ) NEEDLESS to mention that the powers of this court in an acquittal appeal under Section 378 of the Code are very much circumscribed and it is settled proposition of law that unless and until perversity is clearly pointed out or unreasonableness in the assessment of the evidence is successfully spell out it would not be advisable and safe for the appellate court to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the trial court. Acquittal should not be interfered with lightly unless the view taken by the trial court-is shown to be perverse unreasonable or unjust as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Awadhesh vs. State of M. P. AIR 1988 SC. 1158 . ( 9 ) THE Apex Court in the case of Dinanath singh vs. State of Bihar AIR 1980 SC. 1199 has clearly held that where the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused is reasonably possible even if a different view is possible for the evidence that is no ground for reversing the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 10 Since this court broadly agrees with the views adopted and the ultimate conclusion recorded by the trial Magistrate there is no necessity to reiterate the reasons which are weighed with the learned trial Magistrate and it would not be necessary to embark upon detailed inquiry and to record detailed reasons in view of the following two decisions of the Supreme Court: (1) State of Karnataka vs. Hemareddy AIR 1981 SC 1417 and (2) Girijanandini Devi vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary AIR 1967 SC 1124 . ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case this court has no hesitation in holding that the present appeal is without any merit and if required to be dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. .