JUDGMENT : K.J. Thaker, J. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant- State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 21.5.1993 rendered in Criminal Case No.3149 of 1992 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Porbandar, whereby the accused have been acquitted of the charges of offence under sections 7 (1) and 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein after referred to as "the Act"). 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 9.1.1992, the Complainant-Food Inspector visited the shop, viz. M/s. Lakhani Provision Stores purchased sample of oil from the aforesaid shop of the accused persons for the purpose of analysis. After following due procedure under the law and after giving intimation to the accused, in presence of the panch witness the sample was collected. Thereafter, the sample was sent to the laboratory for analysis. The report of the public analyst reveals that the sample of oil is adulterated. Necessary formalities were completed and after obtaining permission/sanction, complaint was registered against the accused. 2.2 The charge was framed against the accused persons, wherein the accused pleaded as not guilty. Therefore, the prosecution led oral as well as documentary evidence against the accused. Thereafter, after filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 2.3 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.5.1993 rendered in Criminal Case No.3149 of 1992 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Porbandar, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 3. Heard learned APP, Ms. Bhatt appearing for the appellant. Though time of 22 years has elapsed, the accused is not served. Be that as it may, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 4. Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned APP submitted that judgment and order of the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. 3. Heard learned APP, Ms. Bhatt appearing for the appellant. Though time of 22 years has elapsed, the accused is not served. Be that as it may, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 4. Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned APP submitted that judgment and order of the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. She has also argued that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. She has argued that Food Inspector has followed the rules prescribed by law and he has also followed the procedure of taking the sample. The food article was seized and sealed properly. She has argued that the learned Magistrate ought to have held that once the ground nut oil is kept in steel vessel before taking sample it is not required to stir the ground nut oil. She also submitted that learned Magistrate ought to have held that once the food article i.e. ground nut oil is found by the central food laboratory to be not upto the standard, it should be held that the food article is adulterated. She also submitted that report of the central food laboratory is final and conclusive and on the basis of it, the learned Magistrate ought to have convicted the accused under the provisions of the Act. She also submitted that the learned Magistrate has not appreciated properly deposition of the complainant which clearly shows that the sample has been collected in a neat and clear jar. It is submitted that the deposition of the complainant clearly shows that vessel/jar was being made neat and clean before the sample has been collected. Therefore, the order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be quashed and set aside. 5. 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 before the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP. The trial court while considering the oral as well as documentary evidence has clearly observed that the prosecution has not followed Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which is mandatory in nature. The trial Court also found that original analysis report is not produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court also found that original analysis report is not produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial Court. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. It is a 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 respondent - accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this appeal requires to be dismissed. 7. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755 , the 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 characterised 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. 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." 8. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 9. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookiah and Anr. v. State, Rep. By the 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 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 Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasised that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyse 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 the 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 v. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 " 10. Ms. Monali Bhatt learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.1993 rendered in Criminal Case No.3149 of 1992 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Porbandar, acquitting the respondents, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Bail and bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed.