Judgment.- This appeal is by the Calicut Corporation against the judgment orthe District Magistrate, Kozhikode acquitting the accused who was prosecuted forcontravention of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, anoffence punishable under section 16(1)(a)of Act XXXVII of 1954. That the accusedis actually conducting a trade without a licence is amply proved and is in factnot disputed. The only contention was that he had applied for a licence andremitted the licence fee, but for no valid reason it was refused by theCorporation. Learned District Magistrate accepted the plea and acquitted theaccused on the ground that it appears that the licence was refused not on propergrounds. The order of acquittal is clearly wrong and unsustainable in law. Itwas for the licensing authority prescribed in Rule 50 to decide whether therequisite conditions are satisfied and whether it is a fit case for the grant oflicence. If the refusal to grant licence is in the legitimate exercise ofjurisdiction vested in the statutory body and passed bona fide afterconsidering the evidence before it even if the order is wrong on the merits thecriminal Court cannot hold that it is wrong. It is not the function of the Courtto substitute its judgment as an appellate authority for that of the statutorybody. In cases where the party pleads that no licence is necessary it is one ofjurisdiction. But where the plea is that even though licence is necessary it hasbeen wrongly refused on the merits the plea cannot be considered as oneinvolving jurisdiction. The order of the learned District Magistrate has,therefore, to be vacated. I set aside the order of acquittal and find theaccused guilty of the offence charged and convict and sentence him to pay a fineof Rs. 50, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Time forpayment of fine one month from this date. M.C.M. ----- Appeal allowed.