J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-State has questioned the legally and validity of the order of acquittal recorded on 24. 2. 1982 by the learned J. M. F. C. Gandhidham in Criminal Case No. 241 of 1981 by invoking the aid of the provisions of section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code (Code for short ). ( 2 ) THE respondents are the original accused persons who came to be charged for the offence punishable u/s. 7 read with section 11 of the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). According to the prosecution on 22. 11. 80 a surprise checking was made by the officer of the Indian Oil Corporation of an oil tanker bearing No. GTY 3863 and upon examination it was found that one Magan Ala was driving the said tanker and one Bhana was the cleaner. In otherwords accused no. 2 was the driver and accused no. 3 was the cleaner. The prosecution further alleged that the officer found that a false measuring rod known as Dip Rod was used. It was also found by the officer that a forged seal of the Weights and Measures Inspector was used. It was also found by the officer that a forged seal of the Weights and Measures Inspector was used. The rod is an important instrument in the whole machinery because that indicates the weight of the fluid carried in the lanker. The prosecution further alleged that the owner driver and the cleaner had criminal intention to cheat the Indian Oil Corporation. It was the case of the prosecution that the respondents who are the original accused persons were guilty for the offence u/s. 7 read with section 11 of the Act. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court on assessment of the evidence on record reached to the conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted all the 3 accused persons of the said charges against them. Hence this acquittal appeal at the instance of the State. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and having carefully examined the entire record it cannot be contended even for a moment that the view taken and the conclusion recorded by the Trial Court are in any way unreasonable or perverse. Hence this acquittal appeal at the instance of the State. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and having carefully examined the entire record it cannot be contended even for a moment that the view taken and the conclusion recorded by the Trial Court are in any way unreasonable or perverse. There is prohibition of use weights and measures other than standard weights and measures other than standard weights and measures under the provisions of the said Act. There is also prohibition of use of unstamped commercial weights or measures. ( 5 ) ONE of the important aims of the said Act which came into force on 27. 9. 1958 is to provide for the enforcement of standard weights and measures. Measuring instrument means any measuring instrument other than weighing instrument and includes any instrument for measuring length area volume or capacity. Weighing instrument means any instrument for weighing and includes scales with the weights belonging thereto scale-beams balances spring balances steel yards and other weighing machines. In section 3 working standards are prescribed. Secondary standards are prescribed in section 4. Reference standards are prescribed in section 5. In section 6 standard weighing and measuring instruments in provided. ( 6 ) THE most important provision is in section 7 which relates to the prohibition of use of weights and measures other than standard measures. It would therefore7 be necessary at this stage to refer to the provisions of section 7 which reads as under;"7 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or any custom; usage or practice in any area or in respect of any class of goods or under-takings where or in respect of which this Act has come into force no unit of mass or measure other than the standard weights or measures shall be used in any transactions for trade or commerce or in any dealing or contract or for any work to be done or goods to be sold or delivered or be kept in any premises where such transactions are usually conducted. (2) Any custom usage practice or method or whatever nature which permits in any trade a trader seller or buyer to demand receive or cause to be demanded or received any quantity of articles in excess of or less than the quantity fixed by the weight or measure by which the contract or dealing in respect of the said articles has been made shall be void. (3) Any transaction dealing or contract made or had after the expiry of three months from the commencement of this section shall in so far as of three months from the commencement of this section shall in so far as it contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) be void". ( 7 ) THE accused persons were also charged for having committed an of offence punishable under section 11 of the Act which also prohibits use of unstamped commercial weights or measures. Therefore it would be necessary to refer to provision of section 11 of the Act. Section 11 reads as under"11 No weight or measure or weighing or measuring instrument shall be used in any transactions in trade or commerce unless it has been verified or reverified in accordance with the rules made under this ACT and stamped in the prescribed manner by an Inspector with a stamp of verification". ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances emerging from record unfortunately the prosecution has not been able to successfully prove the complixity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no clear and consistent evidence that the accused persons had used weights and measures other than standard weights and measures and they had also used unstamped commercial weights and measures in violation of the principles of section 11 of the Act. ( 9 ) THE powers of this Court in an acquittal appeal are very much limited and it is well sealed proposition of law that unless and until the perversity is successfully spelt out the acquittal should not be interfered with lightly unless the view taken by the trail court is Perverse or unreasonable. It may be mentioned that even whore the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused is reasonably possible even if a different view on the evidence that is no ground for reversing the order of acquittal. It may be mentioned that even whore the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused is reasonably possible even if a different view on the evidence that is no ground for reversing the order of acquittal. ( 10 ) NOTHING has been successfully pointed out which would warrant interference of this court in this acquittal appeal. No misleading of evidence is shown. No provision is spelt out. No unreasonableness in the assessment of evidence is pointed out. In the opinion of this court present appeal is without any merit and requires to be dismissed. ( 11 ) IN the result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. .