1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378(4) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 12.1.1995, rendered in Criminal Case (E.C.C.) No.6 of 1988 by the learned Special Judge, Nadiad. The said case was registered against the present respondent for the offence under Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the complainant on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge is against the law and evidence on record.
2. According to the case of the prosecution, between 20.8.1985 to 22.8.1995, the Director of Civil Supplies visited village Thasra of Rakhiyal Taluka for inspection of various fair price shops. There was decrease in the stock and the stock was not tallying and same was not correct stock at the shop of the accused. The accused had illegally disposed of the stock. Therefore, aforesaid case was filed against the accused.
3. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge vide impugned Judgment and order aforesaid, acquitted the respondent – accused.
4. Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the Judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper. She submitted that false and factious bills were prepared on the card No.198 of Rayjibhai Motihbai and Bhathibhai Amrabhai as also Harmanbhai vide bill No.942, 319 and 678 and same was not reflected in cards of cardholders, but learned trial Judge had not properly considered such facts about illegality committed by the accused. She further submitted that learned trial Judge believed the oral evidence of Makwana at Exhibit 11, Rayjibhia Mothibhai at Exhibit 13, Budhabhai at Exhibit 14 and Punambhai at Exhibit 15 and not properly appreciated their evidence and acquitted the accused. He has also contended that the offence punishable under the Act are directly connected with the public at large.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh for respondent submitted that learned trial Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record and therefore, the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is required to be confirmed. The entry in the ration card was to be made by the accused but due to heavy rush of the customers, the entry was not made by the accused and same is bona fide mistake. Therefore, the judgment and order is required to be confirmed by dismissing the Appeal.
6. I have gone through the papers produced in the Case. I have also gone through the evidence led before the trial Court. It appears that the accused sold the goods to Rayjibhai, Badhabhia and Punambhai and for which the accused issued bill, but the entry in the ration card were not made by him. There were so many customers who came to purchase the goods from the fair price shop of the accused and therefore, defence on the part of the accused that due to heavy rush of customers at his shop, the entries were not made by him. Therefore, in the course of inspection, the stock was not tallied but the bills of sale are already on record. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial Judge has not committed any error while passing the order of acquittal. In the facts of the case I am in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court.
7. It is settled legal position that in acquittal Appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to rewrite 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 at this stage. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 12.1.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nadiad in Criminal Case (E.C.C.) No. 6 of 1988, acquitting the respondent– accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and proceedings are ordered to be sent back to the concerned trial Court.
ynvyas (Z.K.SAIYED,J.)