Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-This Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378 (i) of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the State of Rajasthan is directed against the Judgment and order dated 12.09.2002 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Ajmer in Criminal Revision No. 30/2002 whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 09.02.2002, Food Inspector, District Ajmer filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer under Section 7/16 of the Act mentioning inter alia therein that on inspection he found Chandgiram stocking and selling Raju Brand Supari at Chandiram Brothers, Cinema Road and he after disclosing his identity took sample of Supari by purchasing 3 packets containing 80 pouches for Rs. 90/-. Samples of Supari were seized and sealed as per procedure at that time he told that the same were purchased by him from Ramesh Chandra the proprietor of RCMC Pakers, Madhura. The sample so taken was sent for testing to the public Analyst, Ajmer and on receipt of report it was found to be adulterated. Thereafter, after obtaining sanction from the Chief Medical Health Officer, Ajmer, prosecution was launched against the accused Chandiram-proprietor of Chandiram Brothers, the seller and respondent Ramesh Chand, the manufacturer of Raju Brand Supari. 3. Charge under Section 7/16 of the Act was framed against the accused. The prosecution got examined Food Inspector Gauri Shankar and Bhanwarlal and tendered some documents in evidence to support its case. By its order 010.2002 the leaned trial Court took cognizance of the offence against both the accused. Against that order, the present respondent Ramesh Chand preferred revision petition before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Ajmer, who has set aside the order passed by trial Court and quashed the charge framed under Section 7/16 of the Act against respondent Ramesh Chand on the ground that Ramesh Chand is only a packer and no material has come on record against him for proceeding against him and, therefore, the proceedings against him are abuse of process of Court and vide its Judgment and order dated 12.09.2002 acquitted the accused respondent of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Act. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the State. 4. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the State. 4. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully scrutinized the material available on record. 5. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case while keeping in mind that the acquittal was recorded by the learned Court below on 12.09.2002 for cogent reasons in relation to an offence alleged to have been committed in the year 1993, I do not think it proper to grant leave to file appeal in the present matter which has no merit. 6. In the result, the application for grant of leave is rejected.