Judgment : The appeal is filed by the State challenging validity and legality of the Judgment and Order dated 10/05/2000 passed by the Learned 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola in Criminal Case No. 415 of 1993, whereby the respondent were acquitted. 2. Facts stated briefly are:- On 07/04/1992, the complainant Food Inspector Shri S.G. Dharme along with the witness Gajanan Bansilal Agrawal visited the grocery shop namely; M/s Navjivan Tel Kendra situated at Rajeshwar Mandir Road, Jaihind Chawk, old City, Akola. The accused No. 1 - Rajesh was sitting in the Shop. Various kinds of edible Oils, Tea powder, Sugar, Turmeric Powder were kept for Sale. On being inquired, the Food Inspector was told that the accused No. 2 -Tulsidas is proprietor of the shop. The complainant after disclosing his identity had inspected the shop and prepared inspection note. He found that the Groundnut Oil was kept for sale in a tin. The Food Inspector asked 375 grams of the Groundnut Oil from the said tin for analysis by paying it's price of Rs. 13.50 Ps to the accused no. 1 and obtained the receipt in the presence of the Pancha namely Gajanan and sent the sample for the analysis to the Local Health Authority. Report was received on 26/05/1992 mentioning that the sample was found adulterated as it was having the presence of the Castor Seed Oil. The case papers and the report were sent to the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Nagpur through Health Authority for consent to launch the prosecution. The consent was accorded on 22/01/1993 with some typographical error. Hence, referred back for correction . On 07/05/1993, the corrected consent order was received. The complaint was lodged on 13/05/1993. The second part of the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory which also reported that the sample was adulterated recording that Bellier Turbidity Temperature, acidic acid moved 37.50C which was found below the standard mentioned in the Food Adulteration Act, but the report was not mentioning about the presence of the Castor Seed Oil. The charge was framed by the trial Court. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The charge was framed by the trial Court. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial Judge felt that there was no sanction order after the receipt of the report from the Central Food Laboratory on the point of low temperature of Bellier test and took the view that non obtaining of the fresh consent order from the Joint Commissioner was fatal to the prosecution case and thus acquitted the accused. 3. Learned APP submitted that the view of the trial Court that fresh consent order was required is erroneous as the prosecution was already launched and as per statutory requirement, second part of the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Joint Commissioner had already accorded the sanction to launch the prosecution. It is submitted that according to law, the accused has choice to send the sample to the another agency and even if the report is contrary, it must not be considered as fatal to the prosecution. It is thus submitted that there was no need to have fresh or second sanction to continue the prosecution. Learned APP submitted that the acquittal was merit less. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondent, however, submitted that the view of the trial Court was just and proper under the circumstances. Learned Advocate for the respondent argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the fact that documents were dispatched as referred to Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and the prosecution version of the dispatch by Registered Post is not acceptable in the absence of the original Postal receipt. Reliance is placed upon the ruling in the case of State of Maharashtra Versus Rajkaran reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 183. He then made reference to the ruling in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Nizamuddin Haji Mohamed Kasam reported in 1978 Mah L J 775. This Court following the ruling reported in AIR 1961 SC 1 held that when the report of the Director superseded the report of the Public Analyst, the charge would be different, the adulteration being of different kind, that the prosecution could not proceed on the charge based on report of the Public Analyst and that the fresh sanction would be necessary to proceed on the charge based on the report of the Director. 5. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced before me, the rulings cited and the record. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Nizamuddin this Court had, after making reference to earlier rulings, observed in para 7 thus - “In any case if, as is conceded, the report of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst, a charge in terms of that report will have to be framed by the learned Magistrate. He can not do so unless a sanction for the offence with which now the accused would be charged is given by the consenting authority. Since such a sanction has not been given for the institution of a prosecution for the offence now disclosed by the report of the Central Food Laboratory, the Magistrate could not legally proceed with this case.” 6. In other words, where different ingredients of the offence are disclosed by the report of the Central Food Laboratory, fresh application of mind was necessary to the new facts before a consent could be given. Looking in to rulings cited on behalf of the respondent and the reasons given by the learned trial Court Magistrate, therefore, it must be said that there was no proper compliance to Rule 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as xerox copy of the postal receipt produced by the complainant was found in respect of a different pending case. As per report of the Central Food Laboratory Castor Oil was not found in the sample on the basis of which the complaint was lodged, the sample had also failed on the ground that in the Central Food Laboratory Bellier Turbidity temperature was found less than 1.5 per cent. However, in Public Analyst Report Bellier temperature was found up to the mark. No care was taken to explain the discrepancies and to cure the prosecution by obtaining fresh sanction or consent. Hence, no fault is found in the impugned Judgment and Order. 7. Furthermore, in an Appeal against acquittal, the High Court has to be very slow to interfere in a case wherein two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court may be more probable. The presumption of innocence gets strengthened by an order of acquittal. In the present case the view of the trial Court cannot be labeled as perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The presumption of innocence gets strengthened by an order of acquittal. In the present case the view of the trial Court cannot be labeled as perverse or otherwise unsustainable. No any compelling or substantial ground is found for to upset the decision by the trial court as the view expressed by the trial court was just and reasonable under the circumstances. Hence, Appeal has to be dismissed. Appeal is dismissed.