JUDGMENT : G.B. SHAH, J. 1. Present appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘the Code’ for brevity) has been directed against judgment and order dated 26.03.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangrol in Criminal Case No. 818 of 1995 whereby, the learned trial Judge was pleased to acquit the respondents herein-original accused from the offence punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (‘the said Act’ for brevity) for breach of provisions of Sections 2(ix)(e) and 7(ii) of the said Act. 2. Heard Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat and Mr. Hemant B. Raval, learned advocate for the respondents-original accused. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant-Food Inspector, who is authorised to check the edibles and also to get analyzed under the law such food which appears to be misgiving on 24.08.1995 visited the shop of the respondents named as Tavakkal Provision Store, situated at Cloth Market, Mangrol, dealing in the spices, purchased 450 gms. Coriander powder and sent to the Public Analyst at Vadodara for analysis, which was found to be not according to the specified standards. Accordingly, the accused were alleged to have committed the offence as above for which, the complaint had been lodged against them. 4. In support of the case, the prosecution recorded statements of witnesses and collected several documentary evidence. The learned trial Judge framed Charge against the accused for the alleged offence. The Charge was read over to the respondents-original accused to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the charge against the respondents-original accused, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. 6. On submission of closing pursis, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded. The accused denied involvement in the crime. After hearing both the sides and on appreciation of the evidence adduced before the trial Court, the accused came to be acquitted. 7. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, however, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of the said witnesses and thereby, the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused by leading legal, reliable and impeachable evidence, is contrary to the evidence available on record. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the evidence of complainant-Food Inspector in light of the documentary evidence available on record from which it clearly transpires that the sample in question was taken by the complainant himself from the accused and there is no provision in Rule 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (‘the Rules’ for brevity) that the sample of food article should be taken by the Food Inspector himself for analysis. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that there is breach of Rule 14 of the Rules. He submitted that the complainant has, in his evidence on oath, clearly stated that the vessel used for taking sample was clean, dry and order-less and the said fact is also supported by the Panchnama and hence, it cannot be said that there is a breach of Rule 14 of the Rules. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the helper, who was there with the complainant, was meant only to assist the complainant-Food Inspector and hence, it was necessary to examine the helper. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution but the learned trial Judge has not believed their evidence and has eventually, acquitted the respondents-accused. Last but not the least, he submitted that the present appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice. 8. Per contra, Mr. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution but the learned trial Judge has not believed their evidence and has eventually, acquitted the respondents-accused. Last but not the least, he submitted that the present appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice. 8. Per contra, Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the respondents - original accused, submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence which is forthcoming on the record and the reasons recorded for recording a finding of acquittal are reasonable and justifiable. He further submitted that there are glaring and major contradictions and material improvements without any explanation in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the respondents have rightly been acquitted by the trial Court. He further submitted that this being an appeal against the order of acquittal, the judgment and order delivered by the trial Court deserves to be upheld as proper, as plausible reasons for acquittal have been recorded. Eventually, he submitted that the present appeal may be dismissed. 9. I have considered the above-referred rival submission made by the learned advocates for the parties in light of the record and proceedings of the concerned case. The trial Court has, in the impugned judgment and order, held that, there is a breach of Rule 11 of the Rules as the Food Inspector himself had not taken the sample of Coriander Powder (Dhana-jeeru) from the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that from the evidence of the Food Inspector on oath and also on the basis of the documentary evidence produced in the Court it is clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant had taken the sample from the accused. It is not under dispute that the complainant-Food Inspector had taken the sample from the accused but referring to the deposition of the complainant Exh.16, in the examination-in-chief, he has admitted that Dhana-jeeru powder was made homogeneous by the accused and 450 gms. Dhana-jeeru Powder was weighed by him in a clean, dry and order-less paper for the purpose of analysis of the same. Thus, the trial Court has observed that there is breach of Rule 11 of the Rules. Dhana-jeeru Powder was weighed by him in a clean, dry and order-less paper for the purpose of analysis of the same. Thus, the trial Court has observed that there is breach of Rule 11 of the Rules. If Rule 11 of the Rules and Sub-Section 4 of Section 10 of the said Act, as referred in Rule 11, are referred, it is clear that if any article intended for food appears to any Food Inspector to be adulterated or misbranded, he may seize and carry away or keep in the safe custody of the vendor, meaning thereby, so far as seizing of article is concerned, the same is required to be made homogeneous and in light of the said provision, if Rule 12 of the Rules is referred, the words used are “when a Food Inspector takes a sample of an article for the purpose of analysis, he shall give notice of his intention to do so in writing in Form VI, then and there, to the person from whom he takes the sample and simultaneously, by appropriate means, also to the persons if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A of the Act” meaning thereby, the sample is required to be taken by the Food Inspector so that he can take extra care so far as stirring and making the homogeneous food article is concerned, which in the case on hand, has not been done by the Food Inspector, as has been admitted by him in his deposition. It is pertinent to note that Mr. N.B. Purania, the helper, has not been examined by the prosecution, as has been observed by the learned trial Judge. On this point, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the helper is not kept for the purpose of showing him to be a witness in the case and there is no necessity of examining the helper in support of the evidence of the Food Inspector. I do not find any force and substance in the said submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the reason that in the present case, as such, the panch-witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and the Court has declared him hostile. It has come on record that helper namely Mr. I do not find any force and substance in the said submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the reason that in the present case, as such, the panch-witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and the Court has declared him hostile. It has come on record that helper namely Mr. N. B. Purania was with the complainant - Food Inspector right from the beginning on the date when the article viz. Dhanajeeru Powder was seized. It goes without saying that the Food Inspector had kept the helper for the purpose of assisting him in the manner in which he supposed to discharge his function. So far as cleanliness part of the bottles in which the seized article - Dhana-jeeru Powder was kept is concerned, they are required to be kept clean, as mentioned in Rule 14 of the Rules. Under the able guidance of the Food Inspector, the helper has to take care of the bottles to keep the same in clean and dry condition and to help the Food Inspector in sealing the seized article. Under the circumstances, in my view, the helper is the best witness who was required to be examined by the prosecution but for the reasons best known to them, he was not examined. Thus, considering the documents on record and on going through the impugned judgment and order, dealing with all the aspects of the matter, this Court is in agreement with the conclusion arrived at and the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge, which requires no interference at the hands of this Court. 10. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible then also appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 . In the instant case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 10.1. Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 . In the instant case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 10.1. In the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 280 , Supreme Court has held as under: “The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. Are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal.” 10.2 As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan alias Jardar Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 394 , while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Courts interference in such appeal is somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view. It is further observed that High Courts interference in such appeal is somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view. 10.3 Thus, considering the above evidence forthcoming on record and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal having found without any substance, fails and is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.03.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No. 818 of 1995 is confirmed. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Registry to send back the record and proceedings, if called for, to the trial Court forthwith after following due procedure for the same. Appeal dismissed.