JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 03/06/2006 recorded by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa in Criminal Case No.583 of 2005 whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondents-accused, of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 66(B), 65(A)(E), 81, 83, 98, 99 and 116(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04/07/2005 at about 13:30 hours, near Kavat Patia, in front of Ashirvad Hotel, the respondents-accused were found personally in possession of foreign liquor in the truck trailer bearing no.RJ-07-G-4216 containing 375 boxes which includes 4490 bottles of foreign liquor. The said liquor was carried into truck along with 600 bags of rice. In all prohibited goods i.e. liquor, rice and truck valued at Rs. 21,06,250/- was detected and an offence was registered under Sections 66(B), 65(A)(E), 81, 83, 98, 99 and 116(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the complaint was registered. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, the respondents were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed and submitted the same before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa camp at Bayad for trial and case was registered as Criminal Case No.583 of 2005. The trial was initiated against the respondents. 3. To prove the case against the present respondents accused, the prosecution has examined about seven witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. 4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges levelled against them by judgment and order dated 03/06/2006. 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. This Court has heard Mr.L. B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant-State. 7. Mr. 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. This Court has heard Mr.L. B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant-State. 7. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP has contended that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law as 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 respondents. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP has taken this Court through the impugned judgment and oral as well as the entire documentary evidence and read the evidence of various witnesses and urged that respondents have been wrongly acquitted. It is further contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. It is also contended by him that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondents for the alleged offence under Sections 66(B), 65(A)(E), 81, 83, 98, 99 and 116(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which requires to be reversed as such and the accused are required to be convicted. 8. This Court has minutely perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court as well as paper book and evidence adduced by the prosecution in its entirety and has also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State. 9. Having heard learned APP for the appellant-State and having perused the impugned judgment as well as records and proceedings, as per the prosecution case, it clearly reveals that on 04/07/2005, while the complainant Ghanshyamsinh Vaghela, Police Sub Inspector was on duty at Bayad Police Station, he received secret information from his own sources disclosing that truck No.RJ-07-G-4214 carrying foreign liquor has arrived. After arranging requisite police personal, raid was carried out nearby Ashirvad hotel at Kavat Patia. After arranging requisite police personal, raid was carried out nearby Ashirvad hotel at Kavat Patia. At that time, above mentioned truck was coming while trying to stop it, initially, the driver of the truck did not stop the truck. Thereafter, they chased and stopped the truck where upon investigation of the aforesaid truck, 4490 bottles placed in 375 boxes were found as well as 600 bags of rice were found valuing at Rs. 21,06,250/- and thereafter during the course of investigation, respondent no.1 was found to be driving the aforesaid vehicle and respondent no.2 was additional driver and respondent no.3 was traveling as cleaner in the said truck. Liquor as well as truck was seized. Thereafter further investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation, the complainant himself lodged the complaint and carried out further investigation and thereafter filed charge sheet. In the examination in chief, he has narrated aforesaid factual aspects as regards to receiving secret information and carrying out investigation. In the cross examination, he has admitted that he did receive the secret information, and carried out the raid, and lodged the complaint and thereafter filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation. 10. On overall examination of the evidence on record, it appears that from the seven witnesses examined, five witnesses belonged to police department. Two are independent panch witnesses who have been examined and they have deposed that they were called at police station and they have unloaded the rice bags and boxes containing liquor from the truck and in token thereof, they have signed. The learned Trial Court has recorded the finding that the investigating agency failed to prove conscious possession of aforesaid foreign liquor qua present respondents as well as failed to even carry out the sealing procedure in accordance with the settled guidelines issued so far dealing with such cases are concerned and further also failed to disclose during the investigation the labels indicating the brand of such liquor. However, on perusal of entire evidence on record, this Court finds that while PSI Shri Vaghela received secret information, then, he could not have carried out all the investigations as regards carrying out raid, lodging complaint, carrying out all the investigation and even filing of charge sheet. However, on perusal of entire evidence on record, this Court finds that while PSI Shri Vaghela received secret information, then, he could not have carried out all the investigations as regards carrying out raid, lodging complaint, carrying out all the investigation and even filing of charge sheet. In that view of the matter, consequently, the entire procedure he carried out appears to be tainted and based upon such investigation, no conviction can be recorded. Even otherwise also the panchas have not supported the prosecution case and the case of the prosecution is not getting corroboration with the evidence and, therefore, finding recorded by the learned trial court is just and proper. 11. For the reasons recorded as above, it appears that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them which calls for no interference by this Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges levelled against them. This Court 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. This Court is, 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. It is also 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 reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Accordingly, present appeal is devoid of any merits and requires dismissal. 12. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Bail bond and bail, if any, stands cancelled. Surety also, if any given, stands discharged. Appeal dismissed.