Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 28 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Mansukhlal Jamnadas Nathwani

2011-01-18

Z.K.SAIYED

body2011
ORDER : Z.K. Saiyed, J. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 07th April 1988 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand, in Criminal Case No.1968 of 1987 for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents-accused of the charges levelled against them. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant in the presence of accused No.1 collected sample of Groundnut Oil of "Jay Jalaram Brand" after paying consideration from the shop of accused No.2. It is also the case of the prosecution that after following due procedure of sealing, the sample was sent to the Public Health Laboratory for analysis. On examination, the Public Analyst found that the said sample was adulterated and not upto the standard as prescribed under the Rules. Therefore, after following the due procedure, complaint was filed against the respondents-accused in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand for breach of Sections 2, 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. Thereafter the trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as well as documentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges alleged against them by the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 07th April 1988. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 07th April 1988 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand, in Criminal Case No.1968 of 1987, the appellant-State of Gujarat, has preferred the above mentioned Criminal Appeal. 5. Heard Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant. 6. Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant, has contended that the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. He has also argued that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. He has argued that the learned Magistrate has not considered the fact that the Food Inspector has followed the proper procedure while collecting the sample, etc. are just and proper. He has also argued that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. He has argued that the learned Magistrate has not considered the fact that the Food Inspector has followed the proper procedure while collecting the sample, etc. are just and proper. The sample was seized and sealed properly. Yet, the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of prosecution. He, therefore, contended that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is without appreciating the facts and evidence on record and is required to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 7. It is a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents-accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court. Hence, this appeal requires to be dismissed. 8. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. 9. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 10. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 . 11. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 . 11. Thus, in case the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. 12. I have gone through the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties. 13. The trial Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, found that prosecution has failed to follow the mandatory provision of the Act. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that the sample is injurious to health or not is not recorded in the report of the Public Analyst. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that the case of the prosecution is not supported by the panch witness. Even prosecution has failed to join the manufacturer of the sample. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that the sanction to file complaint is given without application of mind. The trial Court has observed that there are serious lacuna in the oral as well as documentary evidence of prosecution. Nothing is produced on record of this appeal to rebut the concrete findings of the Trial Court. 14. Thus, the appellant could not bring home the charges against the respondents-accused in the present appeal. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the respondents-accused. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Mr.Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial Court has ignored the material evidence on record. 16. In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents-accused of the charges levelled against them. 17. 16. In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents-accused of the charges levelled against them. 17. I find that the findings recorded by the trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. 18. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 07th April 1988 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand, in Criminal Case No.1968 of 1987, is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Appeal Dismissed.