1. The appellant – State of Gujarat, has filed this Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.03.1990 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhidham, in Criminal Case No.2335 of 1986, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents – original accused of the charges alleged against them.
2. The short facts of the original complainant – Food Inspector (respondent No.7 herein) had visited the bakery of the respondents No.1 & 2 on 24.12.1985. The respondent No.1 was present there. The Food Inspector took the sample of tower brand or maida, in presence of panchas. The said sample was sent for analysis, which was found adulterated and, therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondents in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Gandhidham, for the offences under Sections 7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the case was registered as Criminal Case No.2335 of 1986.
3. Thereafter, the trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. The prosecution has examined the witnesses and also relied upon the documentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate, vide Judgment and order dated 9.3.1990, acquitted the respondents – accused from the charges alleged against them.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and order dated 9.3.1990, passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Gandhidham, in Criminal Case No. 2335 of 1986, the appellant – State of Gujarat, has preferred the above mentioned Criminal Appeal.
5. Heard learned A.P.P. Ms. Hansa Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant - State and the learned Counsel Mr. A.D. Shah, appearing on behalf of the respondents – original accused.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the appellant has contended that the learned Magistrate has committed grave error in not properly considering the provisions of law and the Rules. Learned A.P.P. has read the oral evidence of complainant – Food Inspector (Exh.39) and contended that from the oral evidence of complainant, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the documentary evidence Exh.40, 41 and 42, produced on the record. She has also contended that the Food Inspector has followed all the procedure as prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. She has contended that looking to the over all evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Magistrate has committed grave error in not believing the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the judgment of the trial Court may be quashed and set aside.
7. I have also heard learned Counsel Mr. Shah, appearing on behalf of the respondents – accused. He has contended that the main material witness Rajeshkumar R. Shah (Exh.104), who was the panch, has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has contended that the sanction to prosecute the case is not legal and valid. He has also contended that the Food Inspector has not followed the procedure as per the Rules and, therefore, Rule 16 is not complied by the Food Inspector. There is a delay of 24 days in analysing the sample by Public Analyst. He has contended that looking to the facts of the case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the respondents – accused from the charges alleged against them and, therefore, no interference may be called for and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned Advocates, appearing on behalf of the respective parties. I have perused the papers produced before me and also gone through the Judgment and order of the trial Court.
9. The trial Court has observed that the sanction accorded by the Sanctioning Authority is not legal and valid. The trial Court has observed that before according the sanction, the Sanctioning Authority has not assigned any reason and under what section the offence has been committed by the respondents is also not mentioned by the Authority. The trial Court has observed that the sample was taken on 14.12.1985, while the same was analysed on 15.1.1986 i.e. after 22 days from the date of taking sample and, therefore, there is delay of 22 days. The trial Court has observed that looking to the facts that the sanction is not legal and valid, the panch has not supported the case of the prosecution and that there is delay of 22 days in analysing the sample and, therefore, acquitted the respondents from the charges alleged against them. Looking to the observations of the trial Court, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in not believing the case of the prosecution and, therefore, no interference is required to be called for.
10. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in not believing the case of the appellant and the trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. 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.
11. It is also settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 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 reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the Appeal is hereby dismissed.
12. In view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 9.3.1990 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Gandhidham in Criminal Case No. 2335 of 1986, acquitting the respondents – accused is hereby confirmed. Bail Bond, if any, shall stands discharged. R&P to be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas