- (1.) Leave granted in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 619 of 1997.
(2.) Against the respondents in these appeals two separate prosecutions were launched under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('Act' for short) at the instance of a Food Inspector of the Food and Drug Administration Department, State of Maharashtra on the accusation that they had exposed for sale chilly powder and turmeric (whole) in their shop, which on analysis were found to be adulterated. The trial Court convicted them for the above offences and aggrieved thereby they preferred appeals in the Court of Session. The Appellate Court set aside their convictions solely on the ground that the written consent given under Section 20 of the Act for their prosecutions was not proper as the concerned authority did not give reasons therefor. In recording such finding the Appellate Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in A. K. Roy v. State of Punjab, (1986) 4 SCC 326 wherein it has been observed that the consenting authority can give its consent in writing on being satisfied that a prima facie case exists in the facts of a particular case and on recording reasons for the launching of such prosecution in public interest.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order of acquittal the appellant filed petition under Section 378, Cr. P.C. in the High Court seeking leave to prefer appeals therefrom but such leave was refused on the ground that the acquittal was justified. Hence these appeals.;