1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378(4) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 2.7.1997, rendered in Special Criminal Case No.157 of 1994 by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad. The said case was registered against the present respondents 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 State 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, on 12.7.1994, the the investigating staff of Civil Supplies Department, Gandhinagar inspected the petrol pump of the accused and during their visit, it was found that there was a variance of .0014 as regards the density of the petrol, where there was a variance of .0007 in the density of diesel. Thereafter, after collecting the samples of diesel and petrol, the same were sent to the FSL and from the report of FSL, it was found that there was adulteration in the diesel. Therefore, the compliant was lodged against the accused persons aforesaid case was filed against the accused. The case was registered against the accused as Special Criminal Case No.157 of 1994.
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 respondents – accused.
4. Learned APP Ms. Punani 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 accused was engaged in retail sale of high speed diesel and petrol and there was found adulteration in the petrol and diesel and it was found from the report of the FSL, that the density of the diesel drawn from tank No.2 of the said outlet was variance with the density mentioned in the density register. During the course of investigation, it was found that variance in density in petrol came to .0014 and .0007b variance came to be found in density in diesel, which shows adulteration in the petrol and diesel. She further submitted that the witness turned hostile, but the learned trial Judge ought to have relied upon the report of FSL, while passing the order of acquittal of the accused. She read the charge and oral evidence of the witnesses examined during the trial and submitted that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. She further submitted that the commodities like petrol and diesel are concerning with the public at large and therefore, the accused committed such offence can be considered as serious by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge and she prayed to convict the accused.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for respondent submitted that learned trial 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 the Order. The density of petrol and diesel was found within the prescribed limits. Therefore, the offence can not be said to be committed by the accused. Hence, the Appeal is required to be dismissed.
6. 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 Circular issued by the Government produced at Exhibit 49 and 50 and from the said Circulars, it appears that the investigating officers are required to draw samples, if the variance in density of petrol or diesel does not exceed .0030. Therefore, it cannot be said that both the items i.e. density of diesel and petrol were within prescribed limit. During the course of trial, three witnesses were examined and out of them, two panchas were declared hostile. Even the Investigating Officer did not follow the mandatory provision prescribed under the Act, while taking sample for examination. I have perused Clause 8(2) of the Order. While taking samples, the bottles were not properly sealing. 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.
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 2.7.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Case No. 157 of 1994, acquitting the respondent– accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and proceedings are ordered to be sent back to the concerned trial Court.
ynvyas (Z.K.SAIYED,J.)