P.N. DESHMUKH, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra against Judgment dated 12th February 1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahiwadi in Regular Criminal Case No. 130 of 1996, thereby acquitting the Respondent of the offences punishable under Section 2(ia) (h) 2(ia) (m), Rule 47 read with Section 7(1) punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Mr B.K. Karyappa, the complainant who is Food Inspector on 2nd February 1996 along with panch witness inspected the shop of accused and purchased ice-candy as a sample for analysing it, after issuing notice to accused in Form No. 6 and under Section 14 of the Act and after melting them filled the liquid in three separates bottles out of which one sample was sent to Public Health Laboratory, Pune along with Form No. 7 on the following day, while remaining two samples along with Form No. 7 were sent to Local Health Laboratory, Satara. The report of Public analyst stated that the food article i.e. ice candies were not conforming to the standards under the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as were adulterated. The report of Public analyst was sent to Respondent.

3. On the basis of report of Public Analyst investigation was carried out and all the necessary documents were collected from the shop of Respondent and were forwarded to the competent authority for according sanction to prosecute the Respondent. On receipt of sanction the complaint came to be lodged and notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food and Drug Administration Act came to be issued to the Respondent.

4. The learned Trial Court after recording evidence since came to conclusion that there was prima facie substance in the complaint to proceed against the accused explained charges vide Exhibit 50 under Section 2(ia) (h) 2(ia) (m), Rule 47 read with Section 7(1) punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. It is the specific case of the Respondent that he had no space for storing ice candies for sale and he has not sold the ice candy. He had kept the mixture of Soda Lemon as well as carbonated water in the freeze in his shop. The samples were drawn by the complainant inspite of Respondent objected for the same. Thus it is the case of the Respondent that he is falsely implicated by lodging false complaint.

6. Having considered the facts as aforesaid following point arise for determination:-

1. Whether on 2nd February 1996, the Respondent was found stored for sale ice candy which according to the report of Public Analyst was found containing ingredients which rendered it injurious to health and has therefore, committed offence punishable under Section 2(ia) (h) 2(ia) (m), Rule 47 read with Section 7(1) punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

7. I have scrutinized evidence of complainant PW No. 1 as well as that of PW No. 2, the Local Health Authority and PW No. 3 independent panch witness and the documents forming part of the paper book.

8. Heard learned APP for the Appellant. None appeared for the Respondent. The Appeal since is pending for long time same is duly heard on merits, as it can be disposed of after perusing the record, judgment of the Trial Court and on evaluating evidence. The plain reading of section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate dismissal of an Appeal. On the contrary, the code envisage disposal of Appeal on merits on perusal and scrutinizing record.

9. In that view of the matter, Appeal is duly heard even in the absence of Respondent and is disposed of by not merely perusing reasons of the Trial Court in the judgment but by cross checking the evidence on record with a view to satisfy that the reasoning and finding recorded by the Trial Court are consistent with the material on record.

10. It appears to be the case