State of Gujarat vs Chandrakant Navnitlal Dhami

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 20.7.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pardi in Criminal Case No. 2642 of 1990, 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 complainant - Food Inspector took sample of Mango Pickle from the shop of accused - respondent and after following due procedure sent the sample to the Public Analyst and report reveled that sample of Mango Pickle does not conform to the standards and provisions under the Provisions Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Therefore, complaint was filed for the offences u/s 2(IA), (J), 7(1) and 16(A)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, against the accused person.

2.2 Therefore, Criminal Case No. 2642 of 1990 with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against the respondent before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pardi.

2.3 To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has also produced documentary evidence and has examined two witnesses. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge was pleased to acquit the accused - respondent by his judgment and order dated 20.7.2002.

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. 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 trial Judge has not considered the sanction is obtained on the basis of the report of Public Analyst and there is no Rule for obtaining further permission. The learned Judge has not also not considered the evidence of panch witness. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Jduge requires to be quashed and set aside.

4.1 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.

4.2 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 judgement 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.

4.3 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.

4.4 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. The evidence of the witness has not been supported the case of the prosecution. Even the cases, which were produced before the learned trial Judge, were not applicable to the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Judge has rightly considered the cases cited before him. Even the report of the public analyst at Exhibit 49 reveals that how the sample was adulterated is not clear. Therefore, the learned trail Judge has rightly considered the material on record and also he has also given the cogent reasons while passing the judgment and order, therefore, I do not incline to interfere with the same. 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 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.