ORDER : R.S. Garg, J. By this application under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bardoli in Criminal Case No.3764 of 1996 acquitting the accused of the charges framed against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Undisputedly, the Food Inspector had taken sample of masala soda and thereafter, sent the same for its analysis. At the time of sampling, the accused had submitted the warranty given to him by the manufacturer and he, therefore, pleaded that whatever was purchased by him was sold in the same bottle or receptacle and as such, he was not liable under the provisions of the Act. It is to be seen that not only the prosecution was launched after a great delay, but, even the manufacturer of the contents of the bottle (masala soda) was not joined as party accused. The learned trial Court, after taking into consideration that the manufacturer was not joined as a party, held that the accused was protected under the warranty and for the reasons best known to the prosecution, they did not produce the warranty document which was supplied to them by the accused and further that the delay had given a brunt to the defence of the accused, specially, in exercising the right for reanalysing the material. 3. Shri Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after taking me through the judgment, submitted that the acquittal is bad. 4. Undisputedly, the accused held warranty and supplied the warranty document to the prosecution. The prosecution, for the reasons best known to it, suppressed the material document and brought the facts before the Court as if the accused alone was liable to be prosecuted and convicted.They did not show any reason before the Court below as to why they were not producing the warranty document. Even otherwise the delay in launching the prosecution, in fact, had adversely affected the rights of the present opponent-accused. 5. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and that there is no perversity in the judgment of the learned trial Court, I hold that present is not a fit case for grant of leave. The application for grant of leave is, accordingly, rejected. Leave to Appeal Dismissed.