(1.) By this common judgment, all the five (5) appeals are being disposed of together in as much as though they arise out of separate judgments of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F. C.), Jalna, yet, the facts and legal questions involved therein are identical.
(2.) The respondents were prosecuted in private complaint cases instituted by Food inspector G. B. Wadekar for offence punishable under sections 7 (i) and 7 (ii) read with section 16 (l) (a) (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "the PFA act" ). In all these five (5) criminal cases (R. C. C. No. 1 18/1994, R. C. C. No. 119/1994, R. C. C. No. 120/1994, R. C. C. No. 121/1994 and R. C. C. No. 122/1994), the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents vide the five (5)separate judgments. All the five (5) criminal cases arise out of the same transaction and the judgments of acquittal are also rendered for almost same reasons.
(3.) The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them in each of the criminal case. Their defence was of total denial. They submitted that the manufacturing unit was not functional at the relevant time. They asserted that the oil filled in the barrels was extracted on trial basis and was not meant for sale. They further asserted that there was no sale of the oil and the purpose was to examine whether the oil extraction could be undertaken at the factory premises. They also submitted that they did not ever receive copies of the reports of the Public Analyst and as such, have lost valuable right available under sub-clause (2)of section 13 of the PFA Act.