STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SATISH DATTATRAYA KHATAVKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against acquittal.

(2.) In prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (for short the Act) relating to ground-nut oil, the trial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under section 7(i) read with section 2(ia)(a) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Appeal of the accused there from was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the impugned conviction and sentence was set aside and the accused was acquitted. Hence his appeal against acquittal.

(3.) Going through the judgment of the two courts below which have taken of the evidence and the record differing views and hearing Mr. Phanse, Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Throat, learned Advocate for the respondent-accused, we find this to be a case which does not warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. Reappreciating the evidence we would perhaps have been inclined to prefer the reasoning and conclusion of the learned trial Magistrate to that of the Appellate Court. That, however, is no ground or justification for interfering in an acquittal appeal.