JUDGMENT : [1] The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant–original complainant, Bhikhalal Chakubhai Kathiriya, against the Judgment and order dated 28.03.2014 rendered by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, in Criminal Case No.1019 of 2004. The said case was registered against the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Sections-16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the breach of Sections-2(i-a)(a), 2(i-a)(m) and 7(i) and 7(v) of the PFA Act. [2] According to the prosecution case, in the year 2003, the present appellant-complainant was serving as Food Inspector, Junagadh Nagarpalika and and his name was also published in gazetted. On 17.09.2003, during his service, he visited Jalaram Khaman House, Dabbagali, Junagadh at round about 4:00 o’clock and purchased 65 Kg. of Madhur Super Fine Besan in presence of panch and the same was sent to the laboratory and the said sample was found adulterated. Then, the complaint was filed against the respondent Nos.1 to 7 and process was issued. Thereafter, summons was issued to respondents-accused. 4th Then charge-sheet was filed before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, which was numbered as Criminal Case No.1019 of 2014. [3] On the basis of above allegations, charge was framed vide Exh.163 and read-over and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under Sections-16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the breach of Sections-2(i-a)(a), 2(i-a)(m) and 7(i) and 7(v) of the PFA Act. Then, plea was recorded vide Exh.167 to 170 and respondents-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. [4] In support of the prosecution case, prosecution has examined oral evidences:- Sr No Exh . Then, plea was recorded vide Exh.167 to 170 and respondents-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. [4] In support of the prosecution case, prosecution has examined oral evidences:- Sr No Exh . Name of Witness 1 74 Bhikhalal Chakubhai Kathiriya 2 180 Bharakumar Shashikant Unadkat 3 203 Dhirubhai Nathabhai Tank [5] In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has produced several documentary evidences like xerox of Government Gazette at Exh.75, notificatin of Health and Family Welfare Department at Exh.76, xerox of licence at Exh.77, bill of Sanjay Traders, Gondal at Exh.78, xerox copy of form 6(Rule-12) of Municipal Corporation, Junagadh at Exh.79, sample purchased from firm and copy of receipt of payment at Exh.80, details of label from as per Rule-15 at Exh.83, panchanma at Exh.84, receipt of S.T. at Exh.85, copy of Sheel Impression dated 18.09.2003 at Exh.86, memorandum at Exh.86, receipt of muddamal sent to FSL at Exh.88, forwarding letter to accused at Exh.89, copy of notice as per Form-6 at Exh.90, receipt of LHA, Junagadh at Exh.91, acknowledgment slip at Exh.92, yadi letter dated 15.11.2003 of LHA, Junagadh at Exh.93, analysis report of public analyst, Vadodara at Exh.94, letter written to Sanjay Traders dated 19.11.2003 at Exh.95, acknowledgment slip at Exh.96, xerox copy of registration of Sanjay Traders at Exh.97, letter of LHA, Junadagh dated 06.03.2004 at Exh.98, copy of letter to Chief Officer, Gondal at Exh.99, acknowledgment at Exh.100, letter of Food Inspector, Gondal at Exh.101, xerox copy of bill of Krishna Solvent Flour Mill at Exh.102, copy of notice to Krushna Roller Flour Mills, Ahmedabad at Exh.113, copy of forwarding letter at Exh.114, acknowledgment slip of registered A.D. at Exh.115, sanction to register case at Exh.116, copy of letter to Ahmedabad Municipal Commissioner at Exh.117, letter sent by Ahmedabad Municipal Commissioner at Exh.118, xerox of nomination of firm at Exh.119, complaint at Exh.1 etc. [6] Thereafter, after filing closing pursis filed by the prosecution further statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The respondents-accused disclosed that the prosecution has not followed mandatory provision of law and false case is filed against them. They further admitted that they were innocent and they have not committed any offence. [7] Then, arguments of both the parties were heard. The respondents-accused disclosed that the prosecution has not followed mandatory provision of law and false case is filed against them. They further admitted that they were innocent and they have not committed any offence. [7] Then, arguments of both the parties were heard. After considering the defence version of the respondents-accused, the learned trial Judge observed that prosecution did not follow the mandatory provision of law and microscopic test is not permissible in eye of law. In result of breach of the provision of law, learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents-accused from the alleged charge levelled against them. [8] Heard Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant-complainant, Mr.D.K.Modi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 7-original accused and Ms.Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.8-State of Gujarat. [9] Heard Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant-complainant read the judgment and order of acquittal and argued that from the oral evidence of the complainant, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the sample was taken from the place of the respondents-accused. The said fact gets substantiated through oral version of the panch. He further submitted that as per the documents produced on record, it is established that appellant-complainant visited the place Jalaram Khaman House, Dabbagali, Junagadh and packed Besan of 65 Kg. was purchased and the same was sent to the laboratory for analysis. She then submitted that in the analysis report, the said sample was found adulterated. However, learned trial Judge simply observed that mandatory provision of law is not followed by the prosecution and the test which was applied, is not permissible in eye of law and thereby, wrongly acquitted the respondents-accused from the charge levelled against them. Lastly, he prayed that judgment and order of the learned trial Judge is required to be set aside. [10] Mr.D.K.Modi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 7-original accused drew attention of the Court to the observation of the learned trial Judge and argued that in case on hand, one issue is required to be considered in favour of the respondents-accused is that microscopic test was followed by the expert. He further drew attention of the Court to judgments of this Court and other Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as Apex Court, wherein, it is laid down that microscopic test is not permitted in eye of law. He further drew attention of the Court to judgments of this Court and other Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as Apex Court, wherein, it is laid down that microscopic test is not permitted in eye of law. In present case also, microscopic test was followed by the expert and therefore, judgment and order of the learned trial Judge is required to be confirmed only on the a fore stated sole ground. [11] Ms.Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.8-State reiterated the submissions made by Mr.D.K.Modi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7. [12] I have perused the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. As laid down by this Court, microscopic test is not permissible in eye of law. In present case, learned trial Judge reasonably observed and considered that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I am in full agreement with the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge and prima-facie, it is established that the prosecution could not prove its case. Ms.Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor also could not convince the Court that under what circumstances, this appeal can be entertained and judgment and order of acquittal can be set aside. In view of the above observation, I am of the opinion that when mandatory provision of law is not followed by the prosecution, then judgment and order of the acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge, is required to be confirmed and therefore, present appeal deserves to be dismissed. [13] In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under: “16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.” [14] Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled [15] In view of the above, the present Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2014 rendered by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, in Criminal Case No.1019 of 2004, acquitting the respondents–accused is hereby confirmed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Bail bond shall stand cancelled.