JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. The present appeal, under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.12.2008 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad in Criminal Case No.17 of 2003, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 It is case of the prosecution that the Food Inspector visited the shop of the respondent firm on 16.6.2003 and after following due procedure, took sample of turmeric powder which was being crushed, packed and sold by the respondent, in presence of witnesses and panchas. On 17.6.2003, the Food Inspector sent the sample to the Public Analyst, Bhuj and Local Health Authority, Naidad for analysis. The said sample was found adulterated in the report. Therefore, complaint was filed for the offences under Sections 2(ix) (b) (h) (k) and Section 32(c) (I) read with Sections 7(2) (5) and 16(1A) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2.2 Therefore, Criminal Case No.17 of 2003 with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against the respondent before the learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad. During the course of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him before the court of learned Nadiad. 2.3 To prove the case against the present accused, the complainant has also produced documentary evidence and two witnesses has also been examined. Learned trial Judge by his order dated 24.12.2008, has acquitted the accused. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. It was contended by learned APP Mr. D.C. Sejpal that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law; the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. 4.1 Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 4.2 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755 , the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under: "16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterised as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with. me. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings to be sent back to trial Court, forthwith. Appeal Dismissed.