1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment and order dated 09.7.1993, passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar, in Summary Case No.6 of 1988. 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 – State of Gujarat 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 complainant Shri A.D. Suchak has filed complaint against the respondent – accused in which it is alleged that the accused was holding the licence to run fair price shop. It is alleged that on the oral complaint being made by the Labourer, the Assistant Collector, along with the staff, have checked the fair price shop of the accused on 13.8.1987. It was found that in the year 198687 due to scarcity, relief work was going on and out of the amount of labour work to be paid to the labourer, the Government has decided to give wheat of the 50 % amount of labour charges and, therefore, the T.D.O. gave permit for 5200 kg. wheat to the accused. The accused had collected the stock of wheat from the Godown of Palitana. During the checking it was found that there was decrease in the stock and the stock was not tallying and same was not the correct stock at the shop of the accused. The statement of some of the persons were recorded in which it was found that they have not received wheat and the bills were also not issued to them. It was also found by the checking staff that 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 in absence of legal sanction.
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 the learned Judge has acquitted the accused on the ground of sanction only without dealing with any other aspect of the matter. She has contended that the learned Judge has wrongly held that the power was not delegated. She has contended that the complainant (Exh.18) has stated that he had visited the shop of the accused in his capacity and position as SubInspector and the Assistant Collector and the Deputy Mamlatdar have also visited the shop of the respondent – accused. She has also contended that the learned Judge has not considered the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record and wrongly acquitted the respondent – accused. She contended that the offence punishable under the Act are directly connected with the public at large. She, therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned Judgment and order of the learned Special Judge.
5. Other side is served, but, not remained present. I have gone through the impugned Judgment and order of the learned Special Judge and also gone through the papers prodeuced before me.
6. From the oral evidence of the complainant (Exh.18), it appears that the witness has admitted in his cross examination that the Collector is the sanctioning authority and without his sanction the complaint cannot be filed in such type of case. This witness has also admitted that the sanctioned was not signed by the Collector, but it was signed by the District Supply Officer, under the instruction of the Collector. P.W. 2 – Alarakh Suvalibhai (Exh.21), who was at the relevant time serving as Deputy Mamlatdar, has admitted in his cross examination that he, along with Assistant Collector, had visited the shop of the accused just to record the statement and they have never visited the residence of the card holder. Even looking to the papers produced before me, it clearly appears that no document is produced to show that any power was delegated by the Collector to the Officer to file complaint against the accused. Primafacie, it is established that the question of sanction and ingredients of complaint are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Judge has rightly not believed the case of the prosecution and rightly acquitted the respondent – accused from the charges alleged against him.
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 09.7.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Case 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.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas