1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378(4) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 21.8.1997, rendered in Special Criminal Case No.36 of 1996 by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad. The said case was registered against the present respondents for the offence under Section 3, 7 and 10 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, the respondents engaged in the business in selling of high speed diesel and petrol. On 16.3.1996, the investigating staff of the Director of Civil Supplies Department, Gandhinagar, inspected the said petrol pump and verified the various records of the petrol pump. The investigating officer verified the outlet of the petrol tank and measured the density of the petrol stored in the said tank and compared the same with records available in the premises of the said firm. It was found that there was a variance of .0015 as regards the density of the petrol. The inspecting staff collected the sample of petrol from each of the tank. After following necessary formalities, said samples were sent to the FSL and it was found that the density of the diesel from the tank No.2 of the said outlet was of such variance with the density mentioned in the density register as was beyond permissible limit. Therefore, the complaint was lodged 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 there was difference of density found than the permissible limit at the time of checking but when the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and looking to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, it was found beyond permissible limit. She further submitted that the samples were taken in accordance with the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of Malpractices in Supply and Distribution) Order, 1990 and therefore, the sample was properly taken and result of analysis is reflecting correct result. The statement of the accused was recorded by the checking staff and same has been proved by the prosecution and as per Exhibit 24, it is very clear that the accused have committed crime. She further stated that the investigating officer measured the density of the petrol stored in the said tanks and verified the same and compared the same with records available in the premises of the said firm and during the investigation, it was found that there was variation of .0015 as regards the density of the petrol. She therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of the trial Court.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Panchal 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 samples were not properly drawn by the Investigating Officer and therefore, the question of density beyond the prescribed limits as per the law cannot arise. 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. As per the evidence of P.W.4, Investigating Officer, when a preliminary test with regard to density of the petrol was carried out on 16.3.1996, the variance in density of petrol came to .0015. I have perused the circulars issued by the State Government as well as Central Government, produced on record. The Investigating Officer are not required to draw sample if the variance in density of petrol does not exceed 0.0030 and therefore, the density of petrol was found to be within the prescribed limits. Section 8(1) of the Order, makes it mandatory upon an officer authorized to draw samples to check as to whether density of the products confirms to the requirement indicated in Schedule 1 to the said Order. Clause 2 of the Schedule 1 makes it very clear that the density of the sample is required to be within 0.0030 of the recorded density of the last visit at the retail outlet. I have also perused the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 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 21.8.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.16, in Special Criminal Case No. 36 of 1996, acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stands cancelled. Record and proceedings are ordered to be sent back to the concerned trial Court.
ynvyas (Z.K.SAIYED,J.)