Judgment Z.K. Saiyed, J.—By way of present appeal, filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant employee of Surat Nagarpalika has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.9.2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fist Class, Municipal Court, Surat, in Municipal Case No. 19 of 1996. 2.According to the prosecution case, the respondents are the proprietors of City Motors and running a business of selling of the accessories of the motor vehicles. It is stated in the complaint that the Respondent No. 2 is the Manager of the Respondent No. 1 firm and they are importing motor vehicle accessories from the outer limits of the Surat Municipal Corporation. It is also stated that the Octroi Officers of the Corporation had visited the shops of the respondents on 17.7.1995 and asked Respondent No. 2 to show the receipts and bill filed with respect to the stock of different accessories of the motor vehicles. It is further stated that the Respondent No. 2 has shown the bills and octroi receipts which were not with respect to the existing goods in the shop and it was found that certain goods were imported without paying the octroi and the said goods were imported from Japan and Italy. It is further stated that the Respondent No. 2 has also confessed that they have not paid the octroi of the said goods and the officers of the Corporation has prepared a statement and it was found that the respondents have not paid octroi of Rs. 7,500/- on the goods of approximately worth Rs. 3 lacs. It is further stated that even they have not filled up the declaration form as contemplated under Rule-13(1)(e) and 13(2) and 28(1) and 28(2a) of the Surat Municipal Corporation and has also violated the Standing Order 6 and 7(1) which are punishable under the Standing Order 90 and have also committed an offence under Section 398 of the B.P.M.C. Act. 3. Upon service of summons accused appeared before the trial Court and they were supplied copy of complaint. Thereafter, charge at Exhibit 08 and 09 came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. 3. Upon service of summons accused appeared before the trial Court and they were supplied copy of complaint. Thereafter, charge at Exhibit 08 and 09 came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Thereafter, charge at Exhibit 08 and 09 came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. 6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 7. After hearing both the sides, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fist Class, Municipal Court, Surat, by his judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.9.2000 passed in Municipal Case No. 19 of 1996, acquitted the accused persons as stated above. 8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.9.2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fist Class, Municipal Court, Surat, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 9. I have heard Rutul Desai, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Prashant Desai, for the appellant. No one is appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 10. The judgment and order of acquittal is challenged on various grounds as mentioned in the memo of appeal. Mr. Desai contended that learned Judge has not considered evidence of the prosecution case. Mr. Desai further contended that only from the admission made by the complainant in his cross-examination that octroi amount of goods was of Rs. 7,500/- and in place of that Octroi was calculated for Rs. 75,000/-. He further contended that, it is required to be proved from other evidence of prosecution that it was the sole negligence of the present appellant. He has further contended that looking to the facts of the case as well as evidence produced on record, judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fist Class, Municipal Court, Surat, is illegal, unjust and improper and is required to be quashed and set aside by convicting the respondents-accused. 11. He has further contended that looking to the facts of the case as well as evidence produced on record, judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fist Class, Municipal Court, Surat, is illegal, unjust and improper and is required to be quashed and set aside by convicting the respondents-accused. 11. I have gone through papers produced before me and the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned Counsel. 12. In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, First Class, Municipal Court, Surat, was completely justified in acquitting the respondents-original accused of the charges levelled against them. 13. I find that the findings recorded by the learned Judge are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. 14. Hence, in view of the foregoing reasons, present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.9.2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fist Class, Municipal Court, Surat, in Municipal Case No. 19 of 1996, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. P P P P P