Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1645 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mahendra

2008-07-08

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SHARMA, J.–The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(5) Cr.P.C. challenging the Judgment of acquittal dated 11.2.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur (for short `the learned trial Court) in case No. 565/1989, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents. (2). Brief facts of the case are that complainant Murli Manohar Sharma, Food Inspector, submitted a complaint to this effect that on 21.9.1987 he made an inspection of Sanjay Trading Company in presence of accused Mahendra Kumar and he was found to be selling of `dhania. He submits that the accused respondent was having license of the same. Upon doubt he purchased 600 gm `dhania and put in three bottles in same quantity. After following the due procedure a complaint was filed in the Court u/S. 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. After prosecution sanction, complaint was filed against the accused respondents. (3). The accused respondents were read over the charge in substance for the offence u/S. 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. The accused respondents did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. (4). From the said of complainant statement of complainant PW.1 Murlidhar Sharma, Food Inspector was recorded and certain documents were got exhibited. (5). Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. (6). The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 11.2.1999 acquitted the accused respondents from the aforesaid offence. (7). Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 11.2.1999 passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. (8). In this appeal it has been submitted by Mr. B.N. Sandhu, learned Public Prosecutor for the State that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused respondents. He submits that learned trial Court has wrongly believed the statements of prosecution witness and also considered the prosecution sanction proper. Thus, impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 11.2.1999 passed by learned trial Court is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. (9). Per contra Mr. M.M. Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents submits that PW.1 Manohar Sharma (Food Inspector) was competent to take sample but he has not certified the same as per law. He further submits that the prosecution sanction was not taken in a proper manner. (9). Per contra Mr. M.M. Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents submits that PW.1 Manohar Sharma (Food Inspector) was competent to take sample but he has not certified the same as per law. He further submits that the prosecution sanction was not taken in a proper manner. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 11.2.1999 passed by learned trial Court. (10). I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned Judgment. (11). Learned counsel for the accused respondents vehemently submits that this case is squarely covered with the decision rendered in State of Rajasthan vs. Shyam Pandit & Ors., reported in RLR 2008(1) Page 98, the Head-note of which is reproduced hereunder:- "Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Ss. 7, 16, 20 - Acquittal 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 cycle-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." (12). I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondents and also gone through the record of the case as also the Judgment referred to above. (13). Having gone through the impugned judgment 11.2.1999 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. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Honble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol. Having gone through the impugned judgment 11.2.1999 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. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Honble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Harayana & 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 respondents for the offence for which they have been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. 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 of acquittal 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 11.2.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur in case No. 565/1989.