JUDGMENT 1. 1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(iii) Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of acquittal dated 3.4.1993 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar (for short, 'the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 60/89, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act of 1954'). 2. Brief facts of the case are as under HINDI MATTER 359662 3. In evidence, before charge, statement of PW1 Shambhu Dayal Agarwal were recorded. After hearing parties, the accused respondent was read over the charge for the aforesaid offence, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Complainant in support of his case produced as many as 2 witnesses. 5. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr:P.C. was recorded but he did not produce any evidence in defence. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 3.4.1993 acquitted the accused-respondent holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused respondent. 7. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 3.4.1993 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 8. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statement of complainant. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 3.4.1993 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent. PW2 Sunda Ram, who is witness from the side of the complainant and is an important witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. PW1 Shambhu Dayal Agarwal has not submitted the gazette notification by which he has been appointed as Food Inspector and neither he has complied with Rules 14, 17 and 18 of the Act of 1954 nor Rule 9(a) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In the sample taken by the him, "weevils" were found dead. PW1 Shambhu Dayal Agarwal has not submitted the gazette notification by which he has been appointed as Food Inspector and neither he has complied with Rules 14, 17 and 18 of the Act of 1954 nor Rule 9(a) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In the sample taken by the him, "weevils" were found dead. Public Analyst has not stated any thing regarding the fact that the aforesaid 'Daal' can not be used for human being. Local Health Officer, has not applied his mind while granting sanction. There is no mention in the complaint that the Food Inspector has given sample of envelope and Form No. 17 of the Public Analyst. 10. Learned counsel for the accused respondent vehemently submits that this case is squarely covered with the decision rendered in (1) State of Rajasthan Vs. Shyam Pandit & Ors. reported in 2008 (1) RLR Page 98 , the Head-note of which is reproduced hereunder: "Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Sections 7, 16, 20Acquittal by trial court on the ground that sanction for prosecuting the respondent was not in accordance with law as the sanction did not disclose that the concerned authority had applied its mind before according sanction for prosecution- Sanction was in a cyclp-styled copy in which the blanks had been filled up-Held, it did not show that the authority concerned looked into material relating to case and accorded sanction after application of mind-Object of S.20 is that the authority has to satisfy that the case was fit for prosecution - The authority is not only to apply its mind to facts and circumstances but has also to record reasons as to why launching prosecution against the accused is necessary in public interest-Sanction in the present case not found in accordance with law and found in violation of S.20 - Judgment of trial Court, upheld." 11. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case as also the judgment referred to above. 12. Having gone through the impugned judgment 3.4.1993 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondents. 13. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- (2) Umrao Vs. 12. Having gone through the impugned judgment 3.4.1993 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondents. 13. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- (2) Umrao Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below." 14. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondent for the offence for which he has been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against him. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage and consideration to the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 3.4.1993 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 60/1989.Appeal dismissed. *******