State of Gujarat vs Hasmukhlal Shivlal Khara (Firm) and Others

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The appellant ''State of Gujarat, has preferred this Appeal u/s 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.01.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli, in Criminal Case No. 1369 of 1993, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent''s original accused of the charges levelled against them.

The short facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant'' Food Inspector visited the place of accused and taken the sample of turmeric power for the purpose of analysis. Thereafter, the Food Inspector sent the said sample to the Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated and does not conform to the standards and the provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955. The complainant after obtaining the written permission from the Local Health Authority, filed complaint in the Court of learned Magistrate.

Thereafter the trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. The prosecution has examined the witnesses and also relied upon the documentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent - accused from the charges alleged against them, vide Judgment and order dated 25.1.2000.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and order dated 25.1.2000 passed by the learned Magistrate, in Criminal Case No. 1369 of 1993, the appellant'' State of Gujarat, has preferred the above mentioned Criminal Appeal.

I have heard learned A.P.P. Mr. Jani, appearing on behalf of the appellant'' State and learned Advocate Mr. Parikh for the respondents - accused. I have also gone through the papers and the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court.

Learned APP for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence and submitted that from the above evidence it is established that the complainant has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that while taking the sample the complainant has properly followed the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the evidence of the complainant Food Inspector is believable. He, therefore, contended that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate is without appreciating the facts and evidence on record.

I have gone through the Judgment of the trial Court. I have also perused the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate.

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 judgement 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 court below.

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 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.

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 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 reasoning, 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,

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.

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 before the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant.

The trial court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, has found that from the report of Analyst is is established that the sample taken by the Food Inspector was in a lessor quantity and weight of the sample collected was not as per the rules and regulation and, therefore, there is a breach of Section 14 of the P.F. Act. The trial Court has also clearly observed that the Panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile. The learned Magistrate has also found that the story put-forward by the prosecution is not believable. The trial Court has also found that there are serious lacunae in the oral as well as documentary evidence of prosecution. Nothing is produced on record of this appeal to rebut the concrete findings of the trial Court.

Thus, the appellant could not bring home the charge against the respondents'' accused in the present Appeal. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant'' accused. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Learned Advocate is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in 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 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 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.

In view of above the Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 25.01.2000 passed by the learned Magistrate, in Criminal Case No. 1369 of 1993 acquitting the respondents - accused from the charges levelled against them is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. R & P may be sent back to the trial Court.