1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.08.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.2244/2010, whereby the accused have been acquitted of the charges under sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, leveled against the respondent – accused.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that Food Inspector has visited respondent - accused and purchased 900 grams mango milk shake for the purpose of analysis from respondent no. 1 and kept the same in a neat and clean jar. Thereafter, after following prescribed procedure, he sent it for analysis. On the sample being found adulterated, after obtaining necessary sanction, filed the complaint before the Court. At the time of trial, evidence was led before the trial Court. The documents were produced and oral evidence of the witnesses were also recorded by the trial Court and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has passed the order of acquittal which is impugned in this appeal.
3. Heard learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 and learned APP for the respondent No.2 – State.
4. It was contended by learned advocate for the appellant that the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. She has also argued that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. She has argued that Food Inspector has followed the rules prescribed by law and he has also followed the procedure of taking the sample. The mango shake was seized and sealed properly. She has argued that the learned Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent – accused on the ground that there is violation of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. She has argued that the learned Magistrate has not appreciated properly the deposition of the complainant which clearly shows that the sample has been collected in a neat and clear jar. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate has not appreciated the deposition of the peon of the appellant. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in holding that there is violation of Section 4(4) of the Rules. It is submitted that learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that under section 29 of the Act, permission has been given to use synthetic colour. However, under section 30 of the Act, the maximum use has been prescribed which could not have been more than 100 PPM. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in giving undue importance to the minor contradiction in the deposition of the complainant and his peon regarding the product of the sample. It is submitted that the deposition of the complainant clearly shows that vessel / jar was being made neat and clean before the sample has been collected. In fact, the learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the deposition of the peon of the complainant, who has specifically stated in his deposition that the vessels were made neat and clean by washing the same. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed in error in law and facts in not appreciating that the Central Forensic Laboratory clearly shows that the seal of the sample container and outer cover if compared and it was found intact and unbroken. Yet, the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of prosecution. Therefore, the order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the learned Magistrate has not committed any error in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him. He has, therefore, prayed that the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate deserves to be confirmed and the criminal case requires to be dismissed.
6. 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 at this stage. Hence, this appeal requires to be dismissed.
7. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & 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:
“16. 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.”
8. 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.
9. 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, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417, wherein, it is held as under:
“… This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) 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.”
10. 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.
11. 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 by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State. The trial court while considering the oral as well as documentary evidence has clearly observed that the prosecution has not followed the mandatory provisions. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial Court. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Ms. Shaili Kapadia learned advocate 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.
13. 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 him.
14. 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.
15. 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. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.
[ Z.K. SAIYED, J. ] vijay