[1] The present appeal under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.09.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in E.S.T.P. Case No.3/1990, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents No.1 and 2 – accused from the charges levelled against them.
[2] The Criminal Revision Application No.449 of 1993 is filed by the petitioner – original complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.09.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in E.S.T.P. Case No.3/1990, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents No.2 and 3 – accused from the charges levelled against them.
[3] The brief facts of the case of the prosecution as well as original complainant are that Umeshbhai Jashbhai Patel, respondent No.3 in Criminal Revision Application and respondent No.2 in Criminal Appeal is carrying on business of selling medicines in retail as well as in wholesale in his capacity as partner in the name of “Apna Chemist”. The said firm is holding licence for the business of selling the medicines in retail as well as in wholesale issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The original complainant and said partnership firm entered into an agreement for supply of medicines to the Municipal Employees as per the prescription of medical officer of the Corporation dispensary, at a price fixed by the Government. However, on receipt of complaint from the complainant that Umeshbhai Jashbhai Patel is selling the medicines by charging higher prices than the prices fixed by the Government, Senior Drugs Inspector Shri Shaikh and the witness Shri B. K. Gandhi, Drugs Inspector found substance in the said complaint and on their inquiry to that effect. On 26.03.1990, Shri N. A. Saraiya, Vigilance Officer of Corporation was contacted by them and obtained his statement along with certain documents. Thereafter, on 27.03.1990, both the aforesaid Drugs Inspectors carried out raid in presence of panchas in the medical store (partnership firm) and seized certain documents. In his statement, Umeshbhai Jashbhai Patel voluntarily confessed that he has charged higher price. Umeshbhai Jashbhai Patel also did not make available the details regarding the purchase and sale of medicines and / or drugs though demanded in presence of the panchas. On investigation, it was found that Umeshbhai Jashbhai Patel had sold the drugs at a price exceeding the price fixed by the Government. Thus, Umeshbhai Jashbhai Patel had committed breach of Clause 18 and 22 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Clause 26 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 r/w. Sections 3, 7 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Therefore, the compliant was lodged against the accused persons aforesaid case was filed against the accused. The case was registered against the accused as E.S.T.P. Case No. 3 of 1990.
[4] At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned Judgment and order aforesaid, acquitted the respondents – accused.
[5] Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant – State, Mr.J. M. Panchal, learned senior advocate for the respondents and Mr.Pranav Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner – original complainant.
[6] Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant – State 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 has contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that accused was running Chemist shop and he was selling medicine at higher rate then prescribed by the company. She has further contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the complainant who is Inspector of Drugs Department visited the premises of the accused and also to find that the accused was charged higher price then fixed price of the drugs. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have considered the evidence of P.W.1, the Vigilance Officer at Ex.24, and also of P.W.2 Mr.Shaikh, who is Senior Drugs Inspector at Ex.41, their evidence are trustworthy and reliable. She has, therefore, contended that looking to the over all evidence, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them. She, therefore, contended that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is bad in law and perverse and, therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
[7] Mr.Pranav Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner – original complainant in revision application has submitted that the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them. He has submitted that learned Judge ought to have seen that the accused have confessed voluntarily having sold the medicines at a price higher than that fixed by the Government. She has further contended that accused have committed breach of clause 18 and 22 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987. He has contended that the accused have also committed offence punishable under Clause 26 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987, under sections 3, 7 and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He, therefore, contended that the Judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge is bad in law and perverse and, therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside and the revision application requires to be allowed.
[8] Mr.J. M. Panchal, learned senior advocate for respondents submitted that learned Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record and therefore, the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is required to be confirmed. He submitted that the prosecution did not follow the mandatory provision contained in the Order as well as in the Act. Therefore, the offence cannot be said to be committed by the accused. Hence, the appeal is required to be dismissed.
[9] I have gone through the papers produced in the Case. I have also gone through the evidence led before the trial Court. I have perused the agreement between the accused and the Corporation produced at Exhibit 40. There was no evidence produced by the prosecution which reflect the prices prevailing at that relevant point of time as the price list was not produced during the course of trial and therefore it cannot be said that the accused took more price than the prices prevailing at that time. Looking to the contention of the agreement at Ex.40 is concerned, it appears that the learned Judge has observed that no prima facie case is made out against the respondents. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial Judge has not committed any error while passing the order of acquittal. In the facts of the case I am in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court.
[10] It is 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.
[11] In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 04.09.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in E.S.T.P. Case No.3/1990, acquitting the respondent– accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and proceedings are ordered to be sent back to the concerned trial Court.
The Criminal Revision Application No.449 of 1993 is hereby dismissed.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.) vijay