AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—The above appeal No. 50 of 1998, at the instance of State, u/s 378 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.5.1993 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal
Case No. 753 of 1987 whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
2.0 The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2.1 On 26.3.1997 at about 15.30 hrs, the complainant Food Inspector Shri. Ramanlal P. Patel visited place of respondent accused. The food
inspector took sample of Coconut Oil and after following the procedure the same was sent to the public analyst. The report disclosed that the
Coconut Oil did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act & Rules and therefore, the
complainant had filed before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad.
Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondents
were arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet was filed against them. The trial was initiated against the respondent.
3.1 To prove the case against accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
Complainant Exb. 6.
Analysist Exb. 7.
3.2 To prove the case against accused, the prosecution has produced following documentary evidence.
Complaint Exb. 2.
Analyst report from Central Food Lab. Exb. 5.
Intimation Exb.8.
Receipt of payment Exb. 9.
Cash memo Exb. 10.
Panchnama Exb. 11.
Forwarding letter Exb. 12.
Authority letter from A.M.C. Exb. 13.
Office Order Exb. 14.
P.A. Note Exb. 15.
Details of Samples Exb. 16.
Letter to accused No. 1,2,3 and 4. Exb. 18.
Xerox copy of letter from L.H.A. Exb.21-24
Notification. Exb. 25.
Gazette Exb. 26.
letter dated 12.7.1989 Exb.27.
At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr. P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and
defence, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted the accused.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court the appellant State has preferred the
present appeal.
It was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Session Court is against the provisions of law, the Sessions Court has not
properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved
the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire
documentary evidence.
At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order
of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S.
Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Another, the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against
the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:
In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of
law that where two view are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court below.
Further, in the case of Chandrappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, the Apex Court laid down the following principles:
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with
an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
[1] An appellate court has full power to review, re appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the
evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
[3] Various expressions, such as ''substantial and compelling reasons'', ''good and sufficient grounds'', ''very strong circumstances'', ''distorted
conclusions'', ''glaring mistakes'', etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of ''flourishes of language'' to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to
curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
[4] An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
[5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by the trial court.
Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence
on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court
has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:
From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would
not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion
arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two
views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the
appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the court
has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances,
to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is
connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.
Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh and Ors. reported in AIR
2007 SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad(Dead) by Lrs. v. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2007 SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may
exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings,
when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State
of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy and Another, wherein it is held as under:
...This Court has observed in Girja Nandini Devi and Others Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhury, that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it
agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court
expressions of general agreements with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.
13.1 Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not
necessary.
13.2 I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced
before the trial court and also gone through the Record and Proceedings and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the
appellant.
At a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is evident that the trial court has clearly recorded a finding that from the panchanama it
revealed that note of L.H.A. is not valid since Shri. S.G. Kangali was not a legally Legal Health Authority at the time of so called crime, as per the
Rules and therefore there was breach of Rule 16(C) of the Act. Even the prosecution has failed to produce the notification, which shows the name
of Shri Kangali as a Legal Health Authority. The trial court has clearly recorded a finding that it is doubtful whether the provisions of Rule 12, 14
and 16 were fully followed or not. In that view of the matter benefit of doubt was granted in favour of the accused.
Mr. Kodekar learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of a trial court
is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.
In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the
charges leveled against them.
I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said finding, no illegality or infirmity has
been committed by it.
I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below
and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Record & Proceedings to be sent to the trial court
forthwith.