State of Gujarat vs Smt. Monaben Navnitlal Thakkar and Others

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present appeal, u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of

acquittal dated 27.3.1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1074 of

1995, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

2.1 The Food Inspector had filed criminal case before the learned Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on the ground that he had taken one sample of

groundnut oil from the shop of respondents - accused. The procedure of taking sealing and sending the sample was meticulously followed as per

the mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst and after verifying the

report of analysis, the sample was not found as per the standard prescribed under the Act and found adulterated. Therefore, complaint was filed

for the offences under Sections 2, 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

2.2 Therefore, Criminal Case No. 1074 of 1995 with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against the respondents before the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The chargesheet was filed against them before the court of learned Magistrate, Ahmedabad.

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. Nanavati 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.

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 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.

4.3 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 before

the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant. It also appears that the Food Inspector has totally

failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Act. As per public analyst report, in test No. 5 of the oil, there is presence of caster is required and in

report also, there is requirement of maximum 10 R.U., but it is found that there is 20 R.U. in the report of the edible oil. The complainant has also

failed to follow Rule 13(1) and 14, while taking the said sample of oil for analysis. Therefore, learned APP is not a position to say that the learned

Judge has committed any error in passing the judgment and order of acquittal of 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 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. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and

proceedings to be sent back to trial Court, forthwith.