JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 2 nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 525/1997 on 31.03.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 2(ia)(a)(b) and 7(i) of The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) and Rule 44AAA read with Section 7(v) and Section 16(1)(a) of The Food Adulteration Rules. 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 2.1 On 19.09.1996 at around 13.00 hours in the afternoon, the complainant - Food Inspector - Rathilal Shivram Patel visited M/s. Bhavani Provision Stores at Baradpura in Palanpur and found the accused no. 1 selling food items. On inquiring, it was found that the accused no. 2 was the owner of M/s. Bhavani provision stores and after the due procedure, the complainant - Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of black pepper from the tin in which around 6 kgs of black pepper was kept for sale. The 600 grams of black pepper was divided into three equal parts of 200 grams each and the three samples of black pepper were packed in clean and dry glass bottles and sealed and labeled and one sample was sent to the Public Analyst at Vadodara. The remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority and after the report of the Public Analyst was received, it was found that the sample had tested positive for TLC Test for mineral oil of coated oil and did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The complainant filed the complaint under Sections 2(ia)(a)(b) and 7(i) of The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) and Rule 44AAA read with Section 7(v) and Section 16(1)(a) of The Food Adulteration Rules which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 525 of 1997 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur. 2.2 The accused were duly served with the summons and after the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed. As the offence was summary triable, the plea of the accused was recorded at Exh. 5 and the accused denied the contents of the complainant. 2.3 The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced 25 documentary evidences on record in support of the case and after the learned the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Bachani for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Bachani for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences. 6. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same. 7. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 - Ratilal Shivrambhai Patel - the complainant at Exh. 6 and he has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by him at the time of taking the sample. The complainant has stated that Helper - A. R. Parmar and panch witness Ismailbhai Gafoorbhai Sheikh and Mafatlal Shambhulal Patel were with him when he had taken the sample and he has produced the copy of the Gazette regarding his notification as Food Inspector at Exh. 7, Form C i.e. the Registration Certificate of Bhavani Provision Stores at Exh. 8, Form 6 intimation of sample to be taken at Exh. 9, receipt of Rs. 72/- for the purchase of 600 grams of black pepper at Exh. 11, bill of Bhavani Provision Store at Exh. 12, panchnama at Exh. 13, Form 7 at Exh. 7, Form C i.e. the Registration Certificate of Bhavani Provision Stores at Exh. 8, Form 6 intimation of sample to be taken at Exh. 9, receipt of Rs. 72/- for the purchase of 600 grams of black pepper at Exh. 11, bill of Bhavani Provision Store at Exh. 12, panchnama at Exh. 13, Form 7 at Exh. 14, the registered post acknowledgement by which the sample was sent to the Public Analyst at Exh. 15, letter to the Public Analyst at Exh. 16, the registered post acknowledgement by which the remaining two samples were was sent at Exh. 17, letter to the LHA by which the remaining two parts of sample were sent at Exh. 18, receipt of sample received by the Public Analyst, Rajkot at Exh. 19, letter of the Public Analyst sent to the Food Inspector with the report at Exh. 20, the report of the Public Analyst at Exhs. 21, details of sample at Exh. 22, letter seeking permission to file the complaint by the complainant to the Local Health Authority at Exh. 23, the forwarding letter along with the permission to file the complaint at Exh. 24 and Exh. 25 respectively, intimation to the LHA that the case has been filed at Exh. 26, the notice to the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 at Exh. 28 and Exh. 29 respectively and the registered post AD slips of the notice sent to the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 at Exh. 30 and Exh. 31 respectively. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the complainant has admitted that he did not go to the Nagarpalika and get any documentary evidence regarding the ownership of the store from which the sample was taken. The containers in which the samples were placed were provided by the office and he cannot say when the containers were purchased and he does not know whether any Register regarding the containers is maintained by the office. He had taken eight to nine containers and the containers were in the safe custody of the office and were provided as per their requirement. He cannot say as to when and how and by whom were the containers cleaned and no note regarding the cleaning of the containers is maintained. He had taken eight to nine containers and the containers were in the safe custody of the office and were provided as per their requirement. He cannot say as to when and how and by whom were the containers cleaned and no note regarding the cleaning of the containers is maintained. The glass containers were given to him two days prior to taking the sample and at the time of taking the sample, the details are mentioned in the panchnama and are not mentioned at any other place. The two parts were sent to the Local Health Authority on 29.09.1996 and the sample was received by the Public Analyst on 29.09.1996. In the document at Exh. 19, in the date ‘3’ is overwritten and similarly the date ‘23’ was also overwritten. In the report of the Public Analyst at Exh. 24, the date of examination is not mentioned and the report was signed on 15.10.1996. As per rule 13(2), the report of the Public Analyst has to be sent to the accused and he has stated that the notice as per Section 13(2) has to be sent by the LHA. After the notice has been received, the accused can file an application for getting the sample checked by the Central Food Laboratory and he does not know whether the accused had preferred any application regarding the same or not. 7.1 PW2 - Mafatlal Shambudas Patel examined at Exh. 42 and PW3 - Ismailbhai Gafoorbhai examined at Exh. 43 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama which is produced at Exh. 13. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and they have denied that any sample was taken by the Food Inspector in their presence. 7.2 PW4 - Avcharbhai Ramabai Parmar examined at Exh. 44 is the Helper who had accompanied the Food Inspector on 19.09.1996 at the time of when the sample was taken. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, the witness has stated that when they left the office at around 12.00 noon, they had three glass bottles, brown paper, lac, thread, etc. and they had taken three bottles from the boxes in which the empty bottles were kept. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, the witness has stated that when they left the office at around 12.00 noon, they had three glass bottles, brown paper, lac, thread, etc. and they had taken three bottles from the boxes in which the empty bottles were kept. They did not make a note at any place and the bottles were small bottles in which about 250 grams of any item could be filled. There was a box in which 500 to 1000 bottles were lying and they do not know for how long were those bottles lying in that box. They were in an open box and he and the Food Inspector – R.S. Patel had cleaned the bottles with the cloth which was lying in the office. 8. On perusal of the record of the case, after the accused was served with the notice and the report of the Public Analyst, the accused had appeared before the learned Trial Court and had given an application at Exh. 4 stating that they had received the notice under Section 13(2) and they wished to send the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. The application was granted by the learned Trial Court and thereafter, the learned Trial Court had inquired from the Registrar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palanpur regarding the report of the Central Food Laboratory and as per the document produced at Exh. 74, the Registrar of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palanpur has given a written submission that on verification of the Registrar Office, Nazar Office and Muddamal Office and all the files and registers including the Inward Output Register, Muddamal Register and other Registers, the sample was not sent to the Food Laboratory and no sample was called for from the LHA and no report was received from the Central Food Laboratory in the Court. The document at Exh. 74 is dated 16.03.2011 9. The document at Exh. 74 is dated 16.03.2011 9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it appears that the complainant - Food Inspector - Ratilal Shivrambhai Patel had visited M/s. Bhavani Provision Store on 19.09.1996 at around 13.00 hours and had taken the sample of black pepper after the stipulated procedure and one part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Rajkot and as per the report of the Public Analyst, Rajkot the sample did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. After the accused were served with the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the accused had appeared before the learned Trial Court and had preferred an application for getting the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory but it appears that the sample was not sent and no report from the Central Food Laboratory was on record of the case. Hence, the accused could not exercise the right under Section 13(2) of the Act. However, in the entire evidence, it has come on record that the bottles in which the samples of black pepper was taken were not cleaned by the Food Inspector in the presence of the accused and the bottles were taken from the office on the previous day from the place where they were placed in an open box. There is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant - Food Inspector - Ratilal Shivram Patel had made the bottles clean, dry and had ensured that the bottles were moistureless and did not contain residue of any items and thereafter, has taken the sample as per the procedure. There is no evidence that has emerged on record to the effect that the Food Inspector had made the bottles clean, dry and moistureless in his presence or under his supervision and even otherwise there is a clear breach of Section 13(2) of the Act. The panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and there are no independent witnesses to support the case of the complainant. 10. In view of the settled position of law, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 10. In view of the settled position of law, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 2 nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur in Criminal Case No. 525/1997 on 31.03.2011, is hereby confirmed. 12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.