A.R. JOSHI, J.

1. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State appellant. None present for the respondents/acquitted accused persons. Though it is such a situation as to absence of the respondents and their Advocate, the present appeal is taken up for final hearing, as it was prolonged since the year 2001 and nearly 11 years have elapsed when the question before bench is whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be interfered with.

2. Initially, all the 11 accused, who are the Manager, President and officer bearers of M/s. Hanuman Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sanstha, Dhargaon, were charged for various offences punishable under Sections 7(i) read with Section 2 (ia) (a) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii), Section 7 (i) read with Section 2 (ia) (a) punishable under Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and Section 7(v) read with Rule 50 punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) read with Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (as amended) and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules , 1955 (as amended).

3. Charge was framed against all the accused. The trial was conducted in which three prosecution witnesses were examined including the