1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant Agricultural Inspector, Surendranagar, under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 26.11.1992, rendered in Criminal Case No.2 of 1987 by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar. The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for the offence under section 13(1)
(a) of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1957 and under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in the Court of learned Special Judge. The said judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the Agricultural Inspector 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 prosecution case, the complainant being Agricultural Inspector on duty visited the accused No.1 viz. Agro Service Centre, Chuda, Taluka : Limdi, on 28.11.1984 in presence of accused No.3 and took the sample of Girnar Super Phosphet 16% W.S.P.O., which is manufactured by the accused No.4 and sent for the analysis to laboratory at Junagadh. After analysis it was found that Girnar Super Phosphet 16% W.S.P.O., is noncertified fertilizer. Upon receipt of the report the complainant, after obtaining sanction, filed complaint against the respondents – original accused for breach of section 13(1)(a) of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1957 and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in the Court of learned Special Judge, Surendranagar, being Criminal Case No.2 of 1987.
3. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents – accused.
4. Learned Advocate Ms.Hansa Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant – Agricultural Inspector has contended that the Judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper. She has contended that the learned Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence of the complainant wherein the prosecution has proved that on 28.11.1984 the complainant visited the service center of respondent no.1 and at the relevant time respondent no.3 was present and the sample was taken as per the provisions of the Act and Rules from the respondent for analysis and the said sample was sent for analysis and as per the report, the said sample was found to be substandard.
5. She has contended that the learned Judge has erred in appreciating the documentary evidence on the record of the case viz. Ex.28 – 38. She has contended that the learned Judge has committed error in appreciating the provisions of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1957. Lastly, she has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that the observations made by the learned Judge are not proper in the eye of law and therefore, judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be set aside.
6. Heard Mr.B.C.Dave, learned advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3. He has contended that during the time of taking sample proper procedure as per Fertilizers Control Order, 1957 was not followed and care was not taken by the complainant. He has prayed that no interference is required in the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge.
7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. I have gone through the papers produced in the Case. I have also gone through the evidence led before the trial Court as well as the Expert Opinion. I have also gone through the Judgment of the trial Court. I have also perused report. Learned advocate for the appellant is unable to convince this Court as to whether the prosecution has followed the proper procedure as per Fertilizers Control Order, 1957 while taking and seizing the sample. In the facts of the case I am in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court.
8. 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.
9. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 26.11.1992, rendered in Criminal Case No.2 of 1987 by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar, acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks