Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 510 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Anil Khimaji Ramoliya

2015-04-29

K.J.THAKER

body2015
JUDGMENT Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 6, Jamnagar (for short, the trial Court), dated 05.05.2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2000, whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the original accused-the Respondent, herein, of the charge punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (the Act, for short). 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as set out before the trial Court, are that the original complainant, who was discharging duties as Food Inspector, purchased a simple of mix milk sold by the original accused after following the necessary procedure prescribed under the law and sent the same for analysis to Public Analyst, Bhuj-Kachh. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated. Hence, a complaint came to be lodged against the accused. On registration of the offence and on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. At the time of trial, since, the accused did not plead guilty, the trial was conducted. 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution, in support of its case, examined three witnesses including the original complainant. 4. Apart from that the prosecution also produced several documents to strengthen its case, viz. the report of public analyst etc. 5. After recording the evidence of the witnesses and perusing the material on record, the trial Court passed the order of conviction, convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 7 and 16 of the Act. Being aggrieved with the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the lower appellant Court, which allowed the appeal of the accused and set aside the order of the trial Court. The aforesaid order of the lower appellate Court has aggrieved the appellant-State, and hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned APP for the appellant-State, vehemently submitted that the trial Court committed a grave error in passing the impugned judgment and order, inasmuch as it failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. She, submitted that taking into consideration the oral evidence led by the prosecution as well as the documentary evidences produced by it, the trial Court ought to have held the accused guilty of the charges leveled against them. She, submitted that taking into consideration the oral evidence led by the prosecution as well as the documentary evidences produced by it, the trial Court ought to have held the accused guilty of the charges leveled against them. She, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for M/s. Thakkar Associates for the accused-Respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the lower appellate Court acquitted the accused after perusing the entire material on record and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court and the appeal be dismissed. 8. Heard learned APP for the appellant-State as well as the learned Advocate for the original accused and perused the material on record with their assistance. 9. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and having perused the material on record, this appeal requires to be dismissed and the judgment and order of the lower appellate Court requires to be confirmed, as the judgment of the lower appellate Court is eloquent and the learned lower appellant Judge has taken into account each and every aspect of the matter. The observations made by the lower appellate Court in Paragraph Nos. 11 and 12, clearly shows that the provisions of the Act were not complied with. Further, the learned lower appellate Court has again reiterated in Paragraph-13 of the impugned judgment that there is no material on record to show that the provisions of Rule 14 were fully complied with. The lower appellate Court found that in the case on hand the memorandum and the specimen of seal were not sent separately, as provided under the Act, and hence, it rightly come to the conclusion that there was breach of the provisions of Rule 18 of the Act, as well. In above view of the matter, this Court has to look into the matter from the touchstone of the following recent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10. 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. 10. 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 a latest decision in the case of Muralidhar @ Gidda and Another vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2014 SC 2200, the Apex Court has laid down the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 12 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed as under; "12. In dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:- (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial Court. (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal. (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial Court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpable wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified. (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if view taken by the court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial Court." 11. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial Court." 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivasharanappa & Others 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." 12. Hence, the reasons stated, herein above, and the aforesaid decisions will not permit this Court to take a different view, than, the one taken by the trial Court. In this case it is not proved beyond doubt that the original accused Nos. 1 to 3-Respondents, herein, committed the offence alleged against them. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order of the lower appellate Court, Dated: 05.05.2004, stands confirmed. Bail bonds of the accused, if any, on bail, stands discharged. R & P be sent back to the concerned trial Court, forthwith. Appeal Dismissed.