JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated October 16, 1987 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhuou (Raj) in Case No. 44/83 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows That on 16.06.1983 at about 8 A.M. Food Inspector Shri Prakash Chandra Sidh (PW-1) reached at Chungi Naka No. 6 and checked the milk carrying by the accused Vishvashwer Lal (accused-respondent) on cycle in a drum. The milk was for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 660 M.M. Milk by paying Rs. 2/- to the accused-respondent. The Food Inspector divide the milk in three clean bottles and mixed 18.18 drops of Formlin and sealed on the same time. 3. At the same time the accused was informed by form No. 6 that the milk which was purchased was for chemical examination. The sample was sent for chemical examination, which was found adulterated. After sanction the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the accused respondent for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu has framed the charges against the accused-respondent under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 5. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 2 witnesses namely PW-1 Prakash Chand Sidh and PW-2 Bhartaram and got exhibited some documents. 7. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 8. After conclusion of the trial the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) vide his judgment and order dated October 16, 1987 acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges framed against him holding inter alia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) dated October 16, 1987 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 10. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) dated October 16, 1987 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and should have been believed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated October 16, 1987 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 11. It is also contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that learned trial court has wrongly observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the sample was taken from the accused respondent. While this fact has been fully proved by the statements of Prakash Chandra Sidh (PW-1) and Bartaram (PW-2). So the judgment of learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) has acquitted the accused respondent from the charges framed against him and thus, no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in this appeal. 13. 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. 14. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated October 16, 1987 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.), I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondent. 15. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : SCC 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." 16. 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : SCC 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." 16. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent for the offence for which they have been charged and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.), as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent. 17. 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 weight 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 and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated October 16, 1987 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (Raj.). The accused-respondent is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******