Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/1366/2010 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1366 of 2010
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF P P JADAV - Appellant(s)
Versus
AMRATLAL
TARACHAND RATHI JALARAM KIRANA STORES,BAZAR RD - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
HL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Appellant(s) : 1,
None
for Opponent(s) : 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 21/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under
Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th February 2010
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sankheda, in
Criminal Case No.501 of 1995 for the offences punishable under the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby the learned
Magistrate has acquitted the respondent-accused of the charges
levelled against him.
The
short facts of the prosecution case is that the appellant along with
panch witness visited the shop of respondent-accused whereby the
respondent was doing his business. It is the case of the complainant
that the complainant purchased Rolax Glucose Biscuit after paying
consideration. It is also the case of the prosecution that after
following due procedure of sealing, the sample was sent for analysis
to the Pubilc Analyst, Vadodara. On examination, the Public Analyst
found that the said sample was adulterated and not upto the
standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954. Therefore, after following the due
procedure, complaint was filed against the respondent-accused in the
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sankheda for
violation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Thereafter
the trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. To prove the
case of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as well as
documentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as
documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the
respondent-accused from the charges alleged against him by his
Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th February 2010.
Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and Order of
acquittal dated 26th February 2010 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sankheda, in Criminal Case No.501
of 1995, the appellant has preferred the above mentioned Criminal
Appeal.
Heard
Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on
behalf of the appellant. I have also gone through the papers and the
Judgment and Order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Mr.H.L.
Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has contended that the
Judgment and Order of the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal
and it is erroneous. He has also argued that the learned Magistrate
has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. He has argued that
the learned Magistrate has not considered the fact that the Food
Inspector has followed the proper procedure while collecting the
sample, etc. are just and proper. The sample was seized and sealed
properly. Yet, the learned Magistrate has not considered the
evidence of prosecution. He, therefore, contended that the order of
acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is without appreciating
the facts and evidence on record and is required to be quashed and
set aside by this Hon’ble Court.
It
is 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 Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons
assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant
case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and
findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the
respondents-accused and adopting the said reasons and for the
reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal
and proper and requires no interference by this Court. Hence, this
appeal requires to be dismissed.
Even
in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State
of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported
in (2007)3 SCC 75,
the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.
Similar
principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State
of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR
SCW 5553
and in Girja
Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR 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, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417.
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 order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. I have also
perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the
trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned
advocates for the parties.
The
trial Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary
evidence, found that prosecution has failed to follow the mandatory
provision of Rules 14 and 20 of the Rules. It is also observed by
the learned Magistrate that without application of mind, sanction
was given by the L.H.A. to file complaint. Even prosecution has
failed to prove that the complainant has purchased sample from the
shop of the respondent-accused. Even Exhibit 88 and 89 is also not
proved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has observed that
there are serious lacuna 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 charges against the
respondent-accused in the present appeal. The prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the case against the respondent-accused.
Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the
prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr.Jani,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, 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
respondent-accused of the charges levelled 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
trial Court and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.
Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed.
The Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th
February 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Sankheda, in Criminal Case No.501 of 1995 is hereby confirmed. Bail
bond, if any, shall stands discharged. Record and Proceedings, if
any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.
K. Saiyed, J)
Anup
Top