( 1 ) ALL these appeals are filed by the Food Inspectors attached to Vadodara Municipal Corporation challenging the judgments and orders of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents. 1. 1. CRIMINAL Appeal No. 203 of 1989 is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th July, 1988 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Vadodara, in favour of the respondents in Criminal Case No. 2810 of 1982. Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1990 is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13th February, 1990 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Vadodara, in favour of the respondents in Criminal Case No. 2017 of 1984. Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 1990 is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th June, 1989 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Vadodara, in favour of the respondents in Criminal Case No. 13835 of 1984. The respondents in all the appeals were prosecuted under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] for committing offences under sections 2 (1a), 7 (1) and 16 (1) (a) of the Act. Since all the Criminal Appeals involve identical controversy, they are heard together and now they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 1. 2. SO far Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 1989 is concerned, the offending commodity is coriander powder, sample of which was collected on 9th February, 1982. Upon analysis by the Public Analyst, it was found to be adulterated. Hence, the Food Inspector, upon obtaining the consent accorded by the Local Health Authority, prosecuted the respondents for aforesaid offences by filing complaints in the Court of the Ld. Magistrate. Subsequently upon the application of the respondents, sample was sent for re-analysis to the Director of Central Food Laboratory and according to the said laboratory also the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Act as well as the Rules and hence adulterated. 1. 3. SO far Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1990 is concerned, the offending commodity is Tur Dal [tuver Dal], sample of which was collected on 2nd February, 1984. Upon analysis by the Public Analyst, it was found to be adulterated. Hence, after obtaining consent from the Local Health Authority, the respondents were prosecuted. 1. 4. SO far Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 1990 is concerned, the offending article is Mukhvas [mouth freshener], sample of which was collected on 9th October, 1984. Upon receiving report of the Public Analyst, it was found that the sample did not conform to the standards laid down under the Act and the Rules and hence adulterated. After receiving the consent from the Local Health Authority, complaint was filed against the respondents, who later on made an application to get the sample reanalysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The report of the Central Food Laboratory also found that the sample was adulterated. Thus, all the respondents have been prosecuted in the respective cases for the aforesaid offences. 1. 5. AT the trial, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On the conclusion of the trial, the Ld. Magistrate by aforesaid judgments acquitted them of all the charges levelled against them. The main ground on which the order of acquittal has been passed is defective sanction/consent. In the opinion of the Ld. Magistrate since the consent did not contain detailed reasons for according it by the Local Health Authority, there was clear non-application of mind and hence the consent was not valid. In these appeals the said ground has been vehemently challenged by the Food Inspector.

( 2 ) I have heard Mr R C Kodekar, Ld. APP for the State. Mr P G Desai, learned advocate appears for the Food Inspectors. I have also heard Mr K V Shelat, Mr A I Pathan appearing for Mr B S Patel and Mr R A Variava, learned advocates for the respondents. I have also gone through the record of the