S.C.PRATAP, J. - (1.)Hearing Mr. V.D. Honble learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.M. Agarwal, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 accused, and going through the impugned judgment and the record of the case, we are satisfied that this is not a case warranting interference with the impugned acquittal of the accused in a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act).
(2.)Taking up first the case against accused No. 2, the fatal infirmity is that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not served upon him. There is nothing on the record to show such service. Indeed, the complainant admits that he cannot say whether accused No. 2 has received copy of the report of the Public Analyst. The acquittal of accused No. 2 well deserves to be upheld on this short ground.
(3.)As regards accused No. 1 we find considerable discrepancy between the evidence of the complainant before the Court and the recitals in the panchanama prepared on the spot. The panchanama indicates that there has not been proper or even substantial compliance with Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act. In the witness box, however, the complainant has improved and has sought to bring the matter squarely within the requirements of Rule 16. Re-appreciating the evidence, it is quite possible to hold that the said rule can be said to have been complied with. But then in an acquittal appeal, it would not be fair and just to substitute our inference on appreciation of evidence for the inference drawn by the learned trial Magistrate on his own appreciation of the evidence. If the inference drawn by the learned trial Magistrate is also a possible inference, this Court would not substitute its own inference in an appeal against acquittal. The learned trial Magistrate has, appreciating the evidence and the record, given to accused No. 1 benefit of doubt. We would not be justified in interfering therewith.