1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1) (3) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 11.8.1999, rendered in Essential Commodities Case No.17 of 1989 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari. The said case was registered against the present respondents – original accused for the offence under Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari. The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the State on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by learned Judge is against the law and evidence on record.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 21.1.1989, Police SubInspector Shri G.N.Zala, received information that near lake of Village Deshra at night time the hawkers of kerosene would be illegally transferring stock of kerosene in tanker bearing No.GTT 4342. The complainant rushed to the spot with panchas and caught the accused persons red handed and thus complaint came to be lodged.
3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against them in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable the same was committed to the Court of Sessions.
4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.
7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents – accused.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 11.8.1999, rendered in Essential Commodities Case No.17 of 1989 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
9. Heard Learned APP Mr.L.B.Dabhi, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. He has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. He has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in its proper perspectives.
10. He has contended that respondents accused were transporting illegally kerosene and they were caught red handed alongwith muddamal kerosene in tanker bearing No.4342. He has contended that the learned Judge has not properly considered the evidence of complainant P.S.I. At Ex.59 and Head Constable at Ex.65, wherein they have clearly deposed on oath that on receipt of the information, immediately they had gone to the place of incident, where respondents accused were caught red handed.
11. He has contended that learned Judge has committed error in holding that looking to the panchnama at Ex.55 it was drawn on 21.1.1989 in between 12.30 to 12.35 and was completed at 2.30 hours on the very same day and therefore, it cannot be said that panchnama was drawn during day hours or night hours. Lastly, he 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.
12. Notice is served to the other side. Mr.H.N.Joshi, learned advocate is appearing for M/s.Thakkar Associates, for the respondent – accused.
13. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge and oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness complainant and also perused the charge framed against the accused. I have also considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties.
14. The panch Manilal B. Patel has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that his signature was obtained in ready panchnama in the police station. From the crossexamination of this panch nothing fruitful has come out. Even panch Haridutt M. Desai, who is dealer of Indian Oil Corporation has not supported the prosecution case.
15. 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 reappreciate 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.”
16. 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.
17. 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 respondent – 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.
18. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 11.8.1999, rendered in Essential Commodities Case No.17 of 1989 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed. Bail bond shall stand cancelled.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks