JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated July 20, 1990 passed by the Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa in Criminal Case No. 108/86 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows : 3. That Subhash Shrivasta (PW-1) Enforcement Inspector, Lalsot on December 17, 1977 inspected the firm Lalsot Agro Service Centre. On inspection he found that there is no price and stock list on the firm, which is the violation of Rule 3 of the Price and Stock Exhibition Order 1977. The customers were not given the bills by the firm which is the violation of Rule 5(3). This firm has charged Rupees 88 of Khad Katta inspite of actual price As. 82 which is the violation of Rule 5(2). 4. The aforesaid acts of the accused-respondent are punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. On the basis of these facts the complaint was lodged against the accused-respondent before the Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The learned Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa framed the charges under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities 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 the examined as many as 6 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. 7. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. 8. After conclusion of the trial the learned Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa vide his judgment and order dated July 20, 1990 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 doubt. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa dated July 20, 1990, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 10. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa dated July 20, 1990, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and should have been believed by the Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated July 20, 1990 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 11. It is also contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Inspector has in a legal manner inspected the firm. He has also contended, that the Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa has not considered the Ex.P.3 and PW-4 which are original and were to be given to the customer but same was not given to customers. He has also contended that the learned trial court has not given any reason for not believing the statement of Enforcement Inspector (PW-1) Subhash Shrivastava. From the statement of PW-1 it is clear that neither price list nor stock list were exhibited on the firm nor the original bills were given to the customers, which is violative of Rule 3 and 5(3) of the order 1977 and punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons the learned Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa 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 Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa. 13. In addition to that he has also contended that the prosecution witness namely PW-6 Bachan Singh, the then Enforcement Inspector Lalsot has filed a complaint (Ex.P-9) against the accused respondent on September 29, 1978 which is a formal witness and PW-3 Ashukhan who is the main witness of the prosecution has been declared hostile. PW-2 Prabhu, PW-4 Bhorilal and PW-5 Bajranglal who are said to be the independent witnesses have also been declared hostile. PW-2 Prabhu, PW-4 Bhorilal and PW-5 Bajranglal who are said to be the independent witnesses have also been declared hostile. Only one witness namely PW-1 Subhash Shrivastava, Enforcement Inspector remained as a prosecution witness, who inspected the firm, who has certified the Ex.P-1 which he has prepared on the spot but Ex.P-1 is not certified by any of the independent witnesses. For that above purpose, he relied upon the judgment of State of Rajasthan v. Mishri Lal Sharma reported in Cr.L.R. 1999 (Raj.) Page 161 which is reproduced as under : "The provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and those contained in various orders issued under the Act as the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act have been enacted for a high social purpose. Enforcement Officer and Food Inspectors owe a duty to the common man to see that there is no black marketing, no fraud on consumer's interest and no adulteration. Implementation of these enactments to ensure the achievement of these objectives apart from moral obligation, is the statutory obligation of the officers empowered to administer and enforce these enactments. 2. It daily comes to notice that these Enforcement Officers and Food Inspectors never lay their hands on big economic houses or whole sellers. They only take opportunity to catch petty milk-sellers going on a cycle or catch hold of technical flaws and file complaints for some minor offences simply in order to show statistics to their higher-ups to satisfy them that they had filed complaints in so many cases. The higher-ups are satisfied with the statistics and they never go deep into the question and find out the intrinsic quality and value of these statistics. Thus, the avowed aims of these enactments remain completely frustrated. Parallel economy and black money is still a problem to the nation. Consumers are daily getting adulterated and below standard goods and materials of daily need. Neither the administrators nor the lower hierarchy ever thinks to control this alarming situation rampant in the country. 3. Who will believe this Enforcement Officer Radhey Shyam (PW-2) who neither seizes the Board by which the stock position was exhibited nor took photograph of the same. He feels satisfied by only preparing a copy of the entries of the notice board and proved the same as ex.P.4, Ex.P.4 is not a primary evidence. Primary evidence by mechanical process which ensures its correctness. He feels satisfied by only preparing a copy of the entries of the notice board and proved the same as ex.P.4, Ex.P.4 is not a primary evidence. Primary evidence by mechanical process which ensures its correctness. The persons from whom the copy Ex.P4 was got witnessed and attested have all been declared hostile. No conviction can be based solely on a document like Ex.P.4 which is itself inadmissible in evidence and, as it is not a primary evidence, there is no illegality in the acquittal of the respondents. 4. The State appeal has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed. 5. Let a copy of this judgment go to the Food Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for information." 14. He has also contended that the Enforcement Inspector has to follow the procedure of Section 100 of Cr.PC. and for that purpose he has relied upon the judgment of this court in State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Gyni Ram Satya Narain, Dhan Mandi, reported in Cr.L.R. 1988 (Raj.) Page 812 which is reproduced as under : "However, there is yet another aspect of the matter. The search and seizure took place on March 5, 1980. it is clear from the inspection memo and seizure memo prepared by the Enforcement Inspector that the provision of Clause (7)(ii) of the Rajasthan (Display of Price and Stocks of Essential Commodities) Order, 1977 were not complied with, requiring that the provision of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to the searches and seizures under this clause. Admittedly, there is nothing in these memos to indicate that the Enforcement Inspector called upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the search. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that a copy of the list of the tins seized and prepared was delivered to the munim of the non-petitioner-firm in whose presence search and seizure were made. It is also not disputed that the seizures were made. It is also not disputed that the seizure was not reported to the Magistrate, having jurisdiction, as required under Section 102(3), Cr.P.C. 1973. It is thus, clear that the search and seizure were made in contravention of these provisions. It is also not disputed that the seizures were made. It is also not disputed that the seizure was not reported to the Magistrate, having jurisdiction, as required under Section 102(3), Cr.P.C. 1973. It is thus, clear that the search and seizure were made in contravention of these provisions. It has been held in Board of Revenue Madras v. R.S. Jhaber, AIR 1968 SC 59 at Page 67 that anything recovered on a defective search must be returned. It has been observed in M.S.M. Mangudi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1971 Madras 275 , para 4 as follows : "4. It, therefore, follows that in the instant case, the search having been made and the seizure having been effected in contravention of the procedural prescription in Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is also applicable to any such search, the stock of the, rice seized has to be returned as such seizure is the result of an irregular and illegal search, in so far as this case is concerned. There is undoubtedly an irregularity in the search. That there has been no illegality is not for the respondents to raise at this stage, because they did not conform to the rule of law, anything done in violation of the rules of law or procedure is normally an illegality. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the rule nisi being made absolute. On this ground the revision fails. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed." 15. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and also gone through the record of the case. 16. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated July 20, 1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa, I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondents. 17. This appeal has come up for hearing before this court after the expiry of more than 30 years from the date of occurrence (December 17, 1977). 18. 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. 17. This appeal has come up for hearing before this court after the expiry of more than 30 years from the date of occurrence (December 17, 1977). 18. 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 have 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." 19. 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 he has been charged and the Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa has given cogent reasons in acquitting the accused respondents. 20. 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 Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 21. 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 July 20, 1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa. 21. 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 July 20, 1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge & Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa. The accused-respondent is on bail and need not to surrender. The bail bonds stand discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******