State of Gujarat vs Babubhai Ishwarbhai Patel

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present appeal, u/s 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.2.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vijapur in Criminal Case No. 497 of 1992, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

2.1 The Food Inspector-Food Inspector had visited the business place of the respondent-accused on 16.12.1991 at 3:3o p.m. and had taken the sample custard oil after following procedure prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sent the sample for analysis as per the prescribed procedure. As per the report of public analyst, the said sample was found adulterated and not as per the standard prescribed under the Act. Therefore, complaint was filed for the offences under Sections 7(1), 16(1)(a)(I) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration.

2.2 Therefore, Criminal Case No. 497 of 1992 with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against the respondent before the learned Magistrate, Vijapur. The chargesheet was filed against him before the court of learned Magistrate, Vijapur.

2.3 To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has also produced documentary evidence and has examined three witnesses.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

It was contended by learned APP Mr. A.J. Desai that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law; the trial 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. He has also contended that the learned Magistrate has also failed to consider the deposition of witness and the case of prosecution was supported by the oral as well as documentary evidence, but the same was not considered by the learned Magistrate in proper manner and wrongly discarded the deposition of the complainant and witness. The learned Judge has not considered that the complainant has followed procedure prescribed under the Act, while taking the sample and without considering the facts and settled position of law, the learned Magistrate has discarded the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is required to be quashed and set aside.

4.1 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.

4.2 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases 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 MP reported in AIR 2007 SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.

4.3 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 expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.

I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant. Learned Magistrate has observed in the judgment that there is difference between the deposition of the complainant and the report of the public analyst and therefore, benefits of doubt is required to be given to the accused. It also appears from the record that the complainant did not care to follow procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the Act, while taking the sample and procedure of sampling and seizing. There is a contradiction in the oral evidence of the witness and there was no offence as per the report of Public Analyst, Rajkot. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate are true and correct and has rightly acquitted the accused. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the 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 respondent of the charges leveled against him.

I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, 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, I do not find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings to be sent back to trial Court, forthwith.