JUDGMENT : Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. The present appeal, under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25-2-2004 passed by the learned Fast Track Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 96 of 2002, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused - the respondent herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Sec. 20(A) of N.D.P.S. Act. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that upon receiving information, the police party raided the agriculture field of accused person in presence of panchas. The agriculture field was belonging to one Kumbhar Vitthal Khima admeasuring about 8 Vighas, and it was found that along with other crops like groundnut, castor and maize, the accused was also cultivating opium without any pass or permit, and hence, after following legal provisions as contemplated under the Act, particularly, under Secs. 42 and 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the opium plant was seized and duly packed by following necessary procedure as contemplated under the Act, offence under Sec. 20(A) the complaint was lodged. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondent was arrested, and ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against him, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 96 of 2002. The trial was initiated against the respondent. 2. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: "1. Complainant Chunilal Ramjibhai Vandarwala Exh. 10 2. Vadiyabhai Kathadbhai Exh. 16 3. Mukim Abdulbhai Exh. 18 4. Rahimsha Bachusha Exh. 21 5. Yusufbhai Ismail Fakir Exh. 22 6. Alarakhabhai Ibrahimbhai Exh. 23 7. Babulal Chhedilal Sharma Exh. 24" 3. To bring home the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution has also produced following documentary evidences: "1. Receipt of F.S.L. Exh. 7 2. Forwarding letter of F.S.L. Exh. 8 3. F.S.L. Report with forwarding letter Exh. 9 4. Notification under Sec. 42 of Act Exh. 11 5. Preliminary panchnama Exh. 12 6. Panchnama of house of accused Exh. 13 7. Complaint of Shri Vadarwala Exh. 14 8. Photographs of scene of offence place Exh. 17 9. Report of P.S.O. Savarkundla to C.P.I. Dhari Exh. 19 10. Copy of 7/12 abstract of village Vanot Exh. 25 11. Copy of 7/12 abstract of village Vanot Exh. 26 12. Preliminary panchnama Exh. 12 6. Panchnama of house of accused Exh. 13 7. Complaint of Shri Vadarwala Exh. 14 8. Photographs of scene of offence place Exh. 17 9. Report of P.S.O. Savarkundla to C.P.I. Dhari Exh. 19 10. Copy of 7/12 abstract of village Vanot Exh. 25 11. Copy of 7/12 abstract of village Vanot Exh. 26 12. Copy of 8/A of khata No. 207 of village Vanot Exh. 27" 4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr. P.C. and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges levelled against him by judgment and order dated 25-2-2004. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal. 6. It was contended by learned A.P.P. Ms. Mehta 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 all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondent. Learned A.P.P. has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence and submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Rajendra K. Joshi for the respondent has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Joshi learned Advocate further submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in acquitting the accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. The principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of an appeal by this Court, against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala, 2006 (6) SCC 39 , the Apex Court has narrated the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala, 2006 (6) SCC 39 , the Apex Court has narrated the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In Para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under: "54. In any event, the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below." 9. Further, in the case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (4) SCC 415 , the Apex Court laid down the following principles: "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, re-affirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, re-affirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. (5) 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." 10. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/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. 11. Even in the case of State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran, 2007 (3) SCC 75, the Apex 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 characterized 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." 12. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in cases of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh, 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.Rs. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in cases of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh, 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. State of M.P. 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled. 13. In the case of Luna Ram vs. Bhupat Singh, 2009 (3) SCC 749 , the Apex Court in Paras 10 and 11 has held as under: "10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so-called eye-witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence." 14. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, AIR 2013 SC 321 , the Apex Court in Para 4 has held as under: "4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges levelled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. and awarded R.I. for life. Since Counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. Since Counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate Court me High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the Court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal Vide : State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal, 2004 (5) SCC 573 ." 15. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, 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 v. Hemareddy, AIR 1981 SC 1417 , wherein it is held as under: "This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi vs. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary, 1967 (1) SCR 93 : AIR 1967 SC 1124 that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice." 16. In a recent decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivasharanappa vs. State of Karnataka, JT 2013 (7) SC 66 has held as under: "That appellate Court is empowered to re-appreciate the entire evidence, though, certain other principles are also to be adhered to and it has to be kept in mind that acquittal results into double presumption of innocence." 17. In a recent decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivasharanappa vs. State of Karnataka, JT 2013 (7) SC 66 has held as under: "That appellate Court is empowered to re-appreciate the entire evidence, though, certain other principles are also to be adhered to and it has to be kept in mind that acquittal results into double presumption of innocence." 17. 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. 18. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned A.P.P. Ms. Mehta for the appellant-State and Mr. Rajendra K. Shah learned Advocate for the respondent-accused. The main plank of argument of Ms. Mehta was that the F.S.L. report confirms that the product was 'ganja' and the report is positive and the learned Judge has also come to the conclusion that the sealed items were 'ganja'. The Police Inspector was examined and therefore, according to her, the report of F.S.L. and the evidence of police officer bring home the charge. Just because the panchas have turned hostile, the learned trial Judge could not have recorded acquittal. As against this, Mr. Joshi appearing for the respondent has submitted that the total weight of the plant was 260 grams, and therefore, the learned Judge has felt that except the police personnel, no one has supported the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that this is a case of no evidence and the judgment is not so perverse that this Court has to interfere with the same, and according him, the accused was in jail for a period four months. After this incident, from 2001, there is no criminal case pending against him. Ms. Mehta has reiterated the submission made before the learned trial Judge and contended that the decision of the Apex Court reported in Karamjit Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), 2003 (5) SCC 291 has been wrongly disbelieved and not applied by the learned trial Judge. The said judgment applies in full force. Unfortunately, Paras 13 and 14 of the judgment are also according to her, based on misreading of factual scenario, and therefore, the judgment requires to be interfered with. The said judgment applies in full force. Unfortunately, Paras 13 and 14 of the judgment are also according to her, based on misreading of factual scenario, and therefore, the judgment requires to be interfered with. The decision cited by the learned trial Judge has not been turned down by the subsequent judgment and the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the case of the prosecution on the settled legal principle and I do not think that any other view is possible in the facts of this case and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, all the witnesses and the panchas have turned hostile, and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, except the police officers, all the witnesses have turned hostile, and therefore, I do not feel that there is any material which will bring home the charge levelled against the present respondent-original accused. The finding of fact is such that this Court has no option but to concur with the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge so as to interfere in this case. The panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. The evidence on record will not permit this Court to take a different view than that taken by the learned trial Judge. Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial Court. Even looking to the evidence on record, learned A.P.P. is not able to bring home the charge levelled against the accused and persuaded this Court to take a different view than that taken by the learned trial Judge in view of the catena of decisions of the Apex Court and the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, 2013 (14) SCC 153 . Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. 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. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the Court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. R. & P. to be sent back to the trial Court. Bail and bail-bond, if any, stands cancelled. Surety also, if any given, stands discharged.