JUDGMENT: Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. The appellant has preferred present appeal under section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code", for short) to question the illegality of the judgement of acquittal dated 6/6/2003 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khambhaliya in Criminal Case No. 1110 of 1988, whereby respondent No. 1 came to be acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of the offence punishable under section 7 & 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was working with Khambhaliya Nagarpalika as a Food Inspector. On 24/6/1988, he visited the handcart of respondent No. 1 near Khambhaliya S.T. Bus Stand and he took samples of Vimto Sarbat. After giving notice as contemplated under section 10& 11 of the Food Adulteration Act, the samples were sent to the Public Analyst, Bhuj for Analysis. The report of the Public Analyst reveals that the Sarbat was adulterated. 3. The appellant, therefore, filed complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khambhaliya for the offence punishable under section 7 & 16 of the Food Adulteration Act. The complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 1110/1988. The summons was issued to respondent No. 1. After recording the pre charge evidence, the charge exh 89 came to be framed against respondent No. 1. He pleaded no guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the case against the respondent No. 2 following witnesses came to be examined: 1. Harkant Lakshmishankar Shukla complainant Exh.45 2 Jusab umar Panch witness Exh.141 3 Kishore vithaldas Panch Exh.142 5. The appellant has also produced and relied upon the following documentary evidence: 1. Notice of sampling Exh.46 2 Receipt Exh.47 3 Panchnama Exh.48 4 Sample letter dated 24/6/88 Exh.49 5 S.T. Parcels receipt Exh.50 6 Memorandum attached with sample Exh.51 7 R.P.A.D. receipt Exh.52 8 Letter dated 27/6/1988 Exh.53 9 Letter received by complainant Exh.54 10 Public analyst report Exh.55 11 Details of sample Exh.56 12 Receipt of receiving sample Exh.57 13 Letter dated 3/8/1988 Exh.58 14 Permission letter Exh.59 15 Notice under section 13(2) of the code Exh.60 6. Upon conclusion of the Trial, the statement under section 393 of respondent No. 1 was recorded, wherein he claimed to be innocent. Upon conclusion of the Trial, the statement under section 393 of respondent No. 1 was recorded, wherein he claimed to be innocent. Thereafter, the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence were heard and by the impugned judgement and order, the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit respondent No. 1. The appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order has preferred this appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. R.C. Kakkad for the appellant and Mr. N.J. Shah, learned APP for respondent No. 2 State. Mr. H.C. Dattani, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 - original accused is absent. 8. Mr. Kakkad, learned advocate and Mr. N.J. Shah, learned APP for respondent No. 2 have submitted that the learned Magistrate has adopted hyper technical approach in acquitting respondent No. 1 on the ground of breach of some of the rules. They have contended that respondent No. 1 was selling cold drinks in handcart near S.T. Bus Station and as per the report of Public Analyst, the cold drinks was found to be adulterated, which has affected the health of large numbers of the people and therefore, learned Magistrate ought not to have adopted such hyper technical view to acquit respondent No. 1. They have, therefore, urged that impugned judgement and order of the acquittal may be set aside and respondent No. 1 may be punished appropriately. 9. I have perused the record and proceedings of the case and I have give my thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by them. 10. Before delving upon the merits of the case, it is necessary to take note of certain decisions of the Supreme Court, wherein the powers of this Court while dealing this acquittal appeal are explained: "* In case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [ (2007) 4 SCC 415 ], the Supreme Court has laid down following principles concerning acquittal appeals are as under: "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: [1] An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: [1] An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. [2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. [3] Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. [4] An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. [5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." *Again in case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr [(2007) 3 SCC 75], the Supreme Court has propounded the following proposition: [1] An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. [2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. [3] Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. [3] Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. [4] An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. [5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." *In case of Mookiah and Anr. v. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu [ AIR 2013 SC 321 ], the Supreme Court has held that: "4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in 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 emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze 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 reappreciate 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 : ( AIR 2004 SC 4520 : 2004 AIR SCW 4321)]" *In case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [ AIR 1981 SC 1417 ], the Supreme Court has held as under: "...This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93 : ( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice." 11. The learned Magistrate has acquitted respondent No. 1 on the ground of breach of rules which by catena of decision of this Court and the Supreme Court, are held to be mandatory and breach, whereof entitles the accused the benefit of acquittal. Moreover, appellant himself has admitted, in his evidence, before the learned Trial Magistrate that he was not possessing the requisite qualification as required for Food Inspector as he was not B.Sc and did not have experience certificate of one year as a qualified Sanitory Inspector. Moreover, appellant himself has admitted, in his evidence, before the learned Trial Magistrate that he was not possessing the requisite qualification as required for Food Inspector as he was not B.Sc and did not have experience certificate of one year as a qualified Sanitory Inspector. He even had not undergone a training for Food Inspection and the procedure for sampling. 12. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the judgement and order of acquittal recorded by learned Magistrate is supported by just and cogent reasons, which does not require any interference in this appeal. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.