JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.9.1991 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur in criminal case No. 71/1984, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence u/s.7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: ^^ifjoknh uksfVQkbZM QwM baLisDVj t;iqj {ks= gSA fnukad 29-5-83 dks lka; 5 cts QSDVjh izhfe;j osthVscy izk0 fy0 t;iqj dk fujh{k.k fd;k] ftl le; lqdqekj tSu lsYlesu de fy0 dsfeLV ekStwn Fkk vkSj [kk| inkFkZ ouLifr cukus] fodz; ds fy, j[kus o fodz; O;oLFkk dk dk;Z dj jgs FksA mUgksus ts0ds0 xqIrk dks uksfeuh gksuk crk;kA rS;kj eky ds xkSnke esa j[ks ouLifr esa feykoV dk 'kd gqvk vkSj psrd czkaM ouLifr ds ,d lhycan Vhu dks [kqyokdj eqyfte lqdqekj tSu dks uewuk nsus dks dgk o Vhu esa ls 1-500 fdyks ouLifr fy;k ftldh dher 22-28 :0 crkbZA dher ywt u cspus ds dkj.k ugh yhA uewus ds fy, izkIr ouLifr dks rhu dkap dh lkQ o lw[kh 'kh'kh;ksa es cjkcj cjkcj Mkydj fu;ekuqlkj yscy vkfn yxkdj lsEiy rS;kj fd;kA ckn esa tkap uewuk feykoVh ik;k x;kA** 3. From the side of complainant, statement of PW-1 Murli Manohar Sharma and PW-2 Bheem Singh Hada were recorded and certain documents were got exhibited. 4. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. In defence the accused respondent produced Mr. Avinash Sharma. 5. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.9.1991 acquitted the accused-respondent holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused respondent. 6. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.9.1991 of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 7. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 27.9.1991 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. 8. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 27.9.1991 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. 8. 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, it has acquitted the accused respondent. He further submits that PW-1 Mr. Murli Manohar Sharma in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that Ex.P-2 has not been published in the official gazette and even the prosecution has failed to produce such certificate. This witness has further admitted in his cross-examination that in Ex.P-12, the form has been filled in by the official member in his handwriting. The Sanctioning Authority also failed to apply its mind while granting sanction. 9. Learned counsel lastly drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of DW-1 Avinash Sharma, in which he stated as under: ^^ifjoknh uksfVQkbZM QwM baLisDVj t;iqj {ks= gSA fnukad 29-5-83 dks lka; 5 cts QSDVjh izhfe;j osthVscy izk0 fy0 t;iqj dk fujh{k.k fd;k] ftl le; lqdqekj tSu lsYlesu de fy0 dsfeLV ekStwn Fkk vkSj [kk| inkFkZ ouLifr cukus] fodz; ds fy, j[kus o fodz; O;oLFkk dk dk;Z dj jgs FksA mUgksus ts0ds0 xqIrk dks uksfeuh gksuk crk;kA rS;kj eky ds xkSnke esa j[ks ouLifr esa feykoV dk 'kd gqvk vkSj psrd czkaM ouLifr ds ,d lhycan Vhu dks [kqyokdj eqyfte lqdqekj tSu dks uewuk nsus dks dgk o Vhu esa ls 1-500 fdyks ouLifr fy;k ftldh dher 22-28 :0 crkbZA dher ywt u cspus ds dkj.k ugh yhA uewus ds fy, izkIr ouLifr dks rhu dkap dh lkQ o lw[kh 'kh'kh;ksa es cjkcj cjkcj Mkydj fu;ekuqlkj yscy vkfn yxkdj lsEiy rS;kj fd;kA ckn esa tkap uewuk feykoVh ik;k x;kA** 10. In rebuttal, the prosecution has failed to produce any witness. 11. Thus, no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 12. 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. 13. In rebuttal, the prosecution has failed to produce any witness. 11. Thus, no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 12. 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. 13. Having gone through the impugned judgment 27.9.1991 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 respondent. 14. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: Umrao v. State of Haryana and 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." 15. 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 the accused-respondent. 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. 16. 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 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 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. 17. 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. 17. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 27.9.1991 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 71/1984.Appeal dismissed. *******