JUDGMENT : R.P DHOLARIA, J. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 2.6.2001 rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra in Summary Case No. 2239 of 1998. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 11.6.1998 at about 6.00 O'clock in the evening, the complainant obtained sample of total nine lice balls for analysis and the same were packed in cleaned and steel bowl which was free from any smell after making three similar parts of it. Out of the said three parts, one part was sent for analysis and remaining two shares were sent to L.H.A, Godhra. On receipt of the report of analysis, L.H.A, Godhra has sent the complaint. On the basis of the same, the complainant has sought permission to file the complaint against the accused and L.H.A, Godhra has granted permission to lodge the complaint. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the intimation to that effect was sent by the L.H.A, Godhra by issuing notice to the accused under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has produced various documentary evidences. After recording the evidence, the charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order acquitting the respondents accused. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 7. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is evidence on record wherein it is clearly mentioned that notice under section 13(2) of the Act was issued to the respondents accused which they has also received. It is further contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and wrongly acquitted the accused though ample evidence was available on record. It is further contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and wrongly acquitted the accused though ample evidence was available on record. It is contended that the impugned judgment and order of trial Court is unreasonable, perverse and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 8. It is contended by Mr. Jigar Mehta, learned advocate for Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned advocate for the appellant that though sample was taken in accordance with the rules and thereafter it came to be analyzed wherein the sample was found to be adulterated as the sample was not conforming the standard and the provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, though learned trial Court while believing the violation of Rule 14, wrongly acquitted the respondents. Lastly, he has urged to convert the acquittal into conviction, as such. 9. On the other-hand, Ms. Sneha Joshi, learned advocate for the respondents accused 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. Ms. Joshi further submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the accused. She submitted that in the case of M.B Risaldar v. Radheshyam Ramdhar Agarwal, reported in 21 (2) GLR 136, the Inspecting Officer was required to ascertain dry and cleanliness of the bottle in which the three samples were drawn and he was required to prove during his deposition that he has taken the aforesaid three samples in dry and clean bottle and nothing has been stated in the deposition of the Inspecting Officer in his deposition who has filed the complaint and, therefore, there is a clear violation of Rule 14 of the PFA Rules and that aspect has been elaborately dealt with by learned trial Court which calls for no interference by this Court. She further argued that on going through the cross examination of the complainant himself, more particularly, paragraphs 2 and 3, he himself has admitted that so far as ice balls are concerned, no minimum quantity has been fixed and, therefore, 500 gms of quantity is required to be taken for each one of the samples. She further argued that on going through the cross examination of the complainant himself, more particularly, paragraphs 2 and 3, he himself has admitted that so far as ice balls are concerned, no minimum quantity has been fixed and, therefore, 500 gms of quantity is required to be taken for each one of the samples. However, the complainant himself has admitted that he does know as to how much quantity was taken and he has not even measured after ice balls converted into liquid and, therefore, there is also breach of Rule 22 and hence, the report of the public analyst also gets vitiated for want of minimum quantity as prescribed under the said Rule. 10. This Court has heard Mr. Jigar Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant, Ms. Sneha Joshi, learned advocate for the respondents accused and Mr. L.B Dabhi, learned APP for the State. 11. This Court has minutely gone through the paper book as well as the impugned judgment rendered by learned Magistrate. 12. This Court has also minutely gone through the deposition of PW 1 - complainant-Yogeshkumar Shah who has drawn sample on 11.6.1998 while inspecting the shop of the respondents accused and obtained nine ice balls in steel bowl and thereafter they were divided in three equal parts and were placed in dry and clean steel bowl. However, in the cross examination, the witness has admitted that for taking the sample of ice balls, no minimum standard is prescribed under Rule 22. The witness has not weighed while taking the sample. However, he has admitted that in absence of minimum standard of taking sample, standard of 500 gms is fixed under the Rules. However, in the present case, the complainant has not shown weighing of sample and not weighed even. The complainant has further admitted that after taking nine samples of ice balls, by stirring it, the same were converted into liquid though he did not weigh and measure it. The complainant has further admitted that he did not clean the steel bowl in the presence of panchas as well as respondents accused. 13. PW 2 Dipika Solanki has deposed as regards to compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act. 14. The complainant has further admitted that he did not clean the steel bowl in the presence of panchas as well as respondents accused. 13. PW 2 Dipika Solanki has deposed as regards to compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act. 14. On overall analysis of the aforesaid evidence on record, it appears that the complainant as well as another witness Dipika Solanki have been examined in order to establish the guilt on the part of the respondents accused. However, on going through the deposition of the complainant himself, it is clear that learned trial Court was not satisfied as regards to due compliance of Rule 14 as he has not made positive assertion in his deposition as regards to dry and cleanliness of the bottle in which the samples were drawn. In consequence whereof, learned trial Court recorded violation of Rule 14. The said aspect is also emerging out from the deposition of the complainant himself as he himself has admitted in the cross examination that he has not ascertained cleanliness of the bottle in the presence of panchas as well as respondents while drawing the sample. Not only that, the complainant has not given any positive evidence as to whether the aforesaid bottle was cleaned and whether the same has been used while drawing sample or not. In this view of the matter, the view taken by learned trial Court calls for no interference by this Court. 15. The evidence on record also clearly indicates violation of mandatory provisions of Rule 22 wherein minimum standard of drawing sample is prescribed. However, so far as drawing of sample of ice balls is concerned, on going through the list, it appears that no weigh is prescribed. In this view of the matter, minimum prescription is 500 gms where food is not specified in the table. However, the complainant himself has admitted in the cross examination that he has not weighed the sample while drawing it and that even he has not measured it after converting it into liquid and hence, he is not able to state whether the sample was 500 gms or not. Not only that, even the details of sample described at Exh.25 as well as report of the public analyst at Exh.24 are also not indicating weighing of sample. Not only that, even the details of sample described at Exh.25 as well as report of the public analyst at Exh.24 are also not indicating weighing of sample. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is violation of Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules. 16. 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. 17. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned 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 learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 18. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.