Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 947 (RAJ)

State v. Jagannath

2008-04-03

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has come up for hearing after the expiry of period of more than 26 years from the date of occurrence. (13.03.1982) 2. The State of Pajanthar has preferred this; appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.018.1990 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhalawar (hereinafter to be referred as `the learned trial court') in Case No. 102/83, by which he acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are as under: On 13.03.1982 at about 7.15 A.M., the Food Inspector Dr. C.M. Srivastava Dy. C.M.H.O., Jhalawar (PW-3) checked the accused- respondent Jagannath while selling milk on carrier of the bicycle at Naka Surajpole in Kasba Patan. The Food Inspector. Dr. C.M. Srivastava, purchased 660 Ml. milk from the accused-respondent Jagannath. Sample of the milk was taken and divided into three and further filled in three separate bottles and were also sealed. The said sample was found to be adulterated one. After getting the sanction the complaint was submitted before the trial Court. 4-5. The learned trial court framed the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954.6. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.7. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 4 witnesses and got exhibited some documents.8. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.9. After conclusion of the trial the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 17.08.1990 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 doubts.10. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial court dated 17.08.1990, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal.11. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly. He has further contended that the learned trial court has wrongly observed that prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused-respondent and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.1990 is erroneous one and should be set aside.12. He has further contended that the learned trial court has wrongly observed that prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused-respondent and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.1990 is erroneous one and should be set aside.12. He has also contended that the learned trial court has erred acquitting the accused respondent on the ground that no information was given to the accused-respondent for exercising his right under 13/2 of the Act, hence he could not have exercised the right under Section 13/2 of the Act. The provisions of Section 13/2 of the Act are directory and not mandatory and if the petitioner wants to examine the sample by the Central Laboratory then he ought to have applied for the same alongwith the sample given to him.13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order 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 from the charges framed against him and thus, no interference is required a with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court in this appeal.14. He has further stated that the Food Inspector has not followed the provisions of Section 13/2 and stated that the Food Inspector has not given him any kind of information and he has only sent a report of public analyst to him. In this regard, he has also cited the following judgments: (1) M/s. Shashi and Company v. Orissa, reported in 1989 Cr.Law Journal Page 264 . (2) H.V. Boviba v. Kerala, reported in 1985 Cr.Law Journal Page 1126 . (3) Lallan v. State, reported in 1985 Cr.Law Journal page 267 . 15. He has further contended that in this case the appeal was filed by the prosecution after a long delay and, therefore, the accused respondent was not able to examine the public analyst report to the Central Food Laboratory.16. He has also stated that his case is covered with the judgment passed by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Pandit & Ors. reported in RLR 2008(1) Page 98 which reads as under: "Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Ss. He has also stated that his case is covered with the judgment passed by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Pandit & Ors. reported in RLR 2008(1) Page 98 which reads as under: "Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Ss. 7, 16, 20 - Acquittal by trial court on the ground that sanction for prosecuting the respondent was 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 cyclo-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 section 20 is that the authority has to satisfy 5 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 section 20 - Judgment of trial court, upheld." 17. 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.18. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 17.08.1990 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 5 accused respondents.19. 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 : 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." 20. 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 5 reasonable doubts against the accused respondent for the offence for which he has been charged and the learned trial court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. 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 5 reasonable doubts against the accused respondent for the offence for which he has been charged and the learned trial court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent.21. 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 5 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 trial court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.22. 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 17.08.1990 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar. The accused-respondent is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******