STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NAVINCHANDRA KANTILAL MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an acquittal appeal arising out of prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE article was plain toffee. The acquittal has been recorded in favour of the accused on the ground that there has been in this case breach of R. 22a of the Rules framed under the Act. Mr. Hombalkar, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that there is no such breach, while Mr. N. B. Shah, appearing for the respondents, contended that this was a case of clear breach of R. 22a. The learned trial Magistrate has held that there has been breach of the said rule.

(3.) HEARING rival submissions on this aspect, we find, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the view taken by the learned trial Magistrate is a possible view of the matter. The conclusion reached by him cannot be said to be one which could not have been reached on the record. If such be the position, and this being an acquittal appeal, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt on the basis of the view taken by the learned trial Magistrate and which view, as indicated, can as well be said to be a possible view. Unless the said view can be effectively dislodged and demolished, it is not possible nor open to the appellate Court hearing an acquittal appeal to reverse the impugned acquittal only because another view of the matter was possible or preferable.