JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.05.2013 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lunavada in Criminal Case No.968 of 2008. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant Shri C.M.Nair, was Food Inspector and he was rendering his services since 19.05.1983. That on 1.05.2008, at about 13.00 hours, the complainant along with one helper Shri B.D. Gandhi, visited the shop of accused herein, where the accused was present and he gave his identity as Food Inspector. The complainant took 900 gms. mango juice as sample which was stored in one ice box for the purpose of sale. The complainant took 900 gms. mango juice in the presence of panch witness for the purpose of analysis. After following necessary procedure, he sealed the same and sent it to the Public Analyst, Bhuj for analysis. In the analysis report, it was opined that the said sample of mango juice is adulterated. Hence, after obtaining necessary sanction from Local Health Authority as per law to lodge complaint against the accused herein, the complainant lodged the complaint. 3. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 4. This Court has heard Ms.H.B.Punani, learned APP for the appellant State. Though, Rule has been served, neither the respondent has remained present nor he has put appearance through any advocate. 5. The complainant lodged the complaint under Section 7(1), 7(3), 7(5) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, inter alia alleging that the sample of mango juice was mixed with milk which did not conform to the standards and violated the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The complainant lodged the complaint under Section 7(1), 7(3), 7(5) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, inter alia alleging that the sample of mango juice was mixed with milk which did not conform to the standards and violated the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Magistrate, while dealing with the evidence on record, more particularly the clear admission on the part of the complainant, held that the public analyst found colour in the mango pulp which was permissible. Similarly he also admitted that the said colour was not harmful for human consumption. 6. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence on record, the record and proceedings clearly indicates that there is no standard prescribed under the PFA Rules for the instant sample, which falls in the category of proprietary foods under the Rule 37A(2)(b) of the PFA Rules. In that view of the matter, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Food Inspector reported in 2006 (1) SCC(Cri) 288, the prosecution as regards the articles for which no standards have been laid, applying the standards for other articles would not be sustainable. 7. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 8. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 9. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.