Judgment Z.K. Saiyed, J.—By way of present appeal, filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant-State of Gujarat has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th December, 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, in Criminal Case No. 01 of 1998. The said case was registered against the respondents–original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 2(ia)(m), 7(1)(5) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”). 2. This Court vide order dated 09th July, 2009 ordered to delete the case against Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and vide order dated 25th September, 2009 abated the case against Respondent No. 1 as he was passed away. 3. According to the prosecution case, Respondent No. 2 is shop and Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are the partners of the Respondent No. 2 shop. The respondent-Kedarnath having business of selling grocery and oil. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant–Food Inspector visited Respondent No. 2-shop on 10th January, 1997 at about 16.30 hours and after giving his identity as Food Inspector, purchased sample of 400 gms. Groundnut Oil from 15 ltrs. Oil tin. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the complainant sent the said samples to the Public Analyst, Vadodara for analysis. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was adulterated and does not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Thereafter, after obtaining sanction from the Local Health Authority, complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat against the respondents–original accused for breach of Section 2(ia)(m), 7(1)(5) and 16 of the Act, being Criminal Case No. 01 of 1998. 4. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat vide impugned judgment and order, acquitted the respondents–accused. 5. Heard Ms.Mini Nair, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr.K.V. Shelat, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4. 6. Ms. Nair, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has contended that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper. She has contended that the learned trial Judge has committed grave error in acquitting the respondents-accused. 2 and 3 and Mr.K.V. Shelat, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4. 6. Ms. Nair, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has contended that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper. She has contended that the learned trial Judge has committed grave error in acquitting the respondents-accused. She has contended that the Food Inspector has followed the procedure and thereafter, has taken sample as per the provisions of law. She has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the report of Public Analyst. She has also contended that the offence punishable under the Act are directly connected with the health of public at large and therefore, contended that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is required to be quashed and set aside by convicting the respondents-accused. 7. As against this, Mr. Dagli, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and Mr. Shelat, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 have supported the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. They have contended that the complainant has not followed the Rules 14 and 16(B) of the Rules. They have also contended that the complainant has not followed the procedure properly. Therefore, they have contended that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is required to be confirmed. 8. I have gone through the papers produced before me as well as evidence led before the trial Court. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. Looking to the papers and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, it appears that the complainant has not followed the Rules 14 and 16(B) of the Rules. Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents-accused. Ms. Nair, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant, is unable to convince this Court that the prosecution has followed the mandatory provision of Rules. In the facts of the case, I am in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court. 9. It is 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. 9. It is 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 mentioned aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and is not required to be interfered by this Court. Hence, the present appeal is required to be dismissed. 10. In the result, present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th December, 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, in Criminal Case No. 01 of 1998, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. P P P P P