Judgment This appeal is directed against acquittal of the respondent by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ulhasnagar, District: Thane, for offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with 2(ia), (m) read with section 16(1)(i)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1985 (for short called as "the Act"). 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- On 11th March, 1987 at 4.00 p.m. the Food Inspector, had inspected the respondent's establishment and purchased 900 grams plain toffee as well as 900 grams confectionery from the respondent's shop. The articles purchased were divided in three parts and separately sealed. The samples were sent to the Public Analysis through local Health Authority. As far as hard boiled confectionery is concerned, there was no violation. Respondent was consequently tried for selling adulterated toffee after obtaining necessary approval. 3. After recording the pre-charge evidence, learned Magistrate charged respondent for the offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with 2(ia), (m) read with section 16(1)(i) (a) of the Act. The Prosecution examined three Food Inspectors, who had participated in visit to the shop of respondent in collecting and processing of samples. After considering their evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent vide Judgment and order dated 31st March, 1994. The learned Magistrate seems to have held that there was breach of provision of sections 16 and 17 of the Act in as much as samples were not kept in clean glass bottles. He found that the sample of toffee which was produced before him was in a sample pack which was open and therefore, wondered whether the sample could have been in same condition at the time of analysis. Aggrieved by the respondent's acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent. 5. With the help of both the counsel, I have gone through the record. Though the reasons given by the learned Magistrate may not be appropriate, learned counsel for respondent points out that there is nothing to show that the sample analyzed by the Public Analyst did not conform to the standard prescribed for toffee under item 25.01 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 6. Though the reasons given by the learned Magistrate may not be appropriate, learned counsel for respondent points out that there is nothing to show that the sample analyzed by the Public Analyst did not conform to the standard prescribed for toffee under item 25.01 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 6. The report of the Public Analyst shows that plain toffee which was analyzed had 0.31% sulphated ash; the standard prescribed is not more than 2.5% ash insoluble in dilate hydro chloric acid was nil, when it should not have been more than 2% as per standard prescribed. As far as reducing sugar which was found 11.63%, there is no prescribed percentage of reducing sugar. The fat content was found to be 2.27% and this may possibly have caused the Food Inspector to file complaint, since fat content for butter toffee-was prescribed to be 4%. Since the sample was not butter toffee, but plain toffee, there was no question of 2.27% of fat violating the standard prescribed. In view of this, though the reasons given by the learned Magistrate are not exactly satisfactory, acquittal need not be disturbed. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.