JUDGMENT : 1. 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 08/08/2008 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Municipal Court), Surat in PFA Case No.3 of 2000 whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the present respondent-accused no.1 giving benefit under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'), of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (1) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Food Inspector, Gujarat State visited the shop of the original accused no.1 on 07/10/1999 at about 16:00 hours which was running in the name and style of “Chanda Dairy” where the original accused no.1 was selling milk and milk-made items. Thereafter, in the presence of the Panch Witness, the complainant drew sample of two pouch of 'Sumel Brand' toned milk. The said milk was manufactured by original accused no.2. Thereafter, the said samples was stored and sealed after following due procedure of law in presence of panch witnesses. The complainant also obtained signatures o panchas in the panchnama which he drew at the time of taking sample. Thereafter, he sent the samples to the public analyst, Vadodara for analysis. After the report of the public analyst, as the milk was found adulterated, the complainant obtained permission of local health authority and filed the complaint. Necessary investigation was carried out. During the course of investigation, the respondent was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed and submitted the same before the before the court of leaned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat where the case was registered as PFA Case No.3 of 2000. The trial was initiated against the respondent. 3. To prove the case against the present respondents-accused, the prosecution has produced several documentary evidences. 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 respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 08/08/2008. 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. 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. R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and Mr.Utpal Panchal, learned advocate for the respondent. 7. Mr. L. R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the learned trial court has wrongly granted benefit under Section 19(2) of the Act which could not have been granted and the respondent could have been convicted as such and urged to reverse the order of acquittal in conviction as implicated upon other accused. It is further argued by the learned APP 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 respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. 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 and the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondent for the alleged offence under Sections 7 (1) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which requires to be reversed as such and the accused is required to be convicted. 8. On the contrary, Mr. Utpal Panchal, learned advocate for the respondent supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and has argued that learned trial court has elaborately dealt with the issue involved in the present appeal, more particularly in para-20 of the decision, the learned trial court has discussed entire evidence on record and as the provisions of law envisaged under Section 19 are satisfied, defense made by the respondent was allowed and, therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court requires no interference of this Court. 9. 9. 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 and learned advocate for the respondent. 10. Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties to the present proceedings and having perused the impugned judgment as well as records and proceedings, indisputably present respondent was running shop under the name and style of 'Chanda Dairy' when inspection was carried out. Indisputably the respondent was selling Sumel Brand toned milk preserved in the pouch received from the manufacturer and distributor i.e. original accused nos.2 and 3. Indisputably, as per the version of the complainant himself, said pouch was preserved in deep freezer and the same was found to be intact having no any sort of leakage and the same was analyzed by the public analyst and found to be adulterated. Therefore, the original respondent nos.2 and 3 who are the manufacturer and distributor came to be convicted. The learned trial court, after discussing the entire case, accepted the defense available to the present respondent in view of Sub Section 2 of Section 19 of the Act wherein it is provided that the vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves – (a) that he purchases the article of food - (i) in case where a license is prescribed for the sale thereof, from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer and (b) that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. 11. 11. On going through the evidence on record, indisputably original respondent nos.2 and 3 are manufacturer and distributor and disputably they are licensed and the aforesaid sample of milk pouch came to be taken for the analysis was properly stored by the present respondent in deep freezer from which it was recovered and while taking as a sample, the complainant himself has noted that it was intact and it was preserved as per the standards and no leakage was found and in that view of the matter, the defense of the respondent accepted by the learned trial court is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference of this Court. 12. 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 leveled against him 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 respondent of the charges leveled against him. 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. 13. 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.