ORDER : 1. By means of preferring the present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant­original complainant has brought under challenge the judgment and order dated 13th February 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court No.11, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2014 [hereinafter to be referred to as, “the impugned judgment and order”] whereby plea of the applicant raised in Criminal Appeal has been turned down by the appellate Court. 2. Brief facts leading to institution of the present revision proceedings in nutshell reads, thus ­ 2.1 Case of the applicant­complainant is that in a surprise visit to the business premises of the respondent herein on 12th May 2009, he had collected sample of adulterated article “mango juice” in presence of panchas. The said sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for public analysis, after obtaining necessary sanctions from the competent authority. The same sample of goods was found to be adulterated by the Laboratory, upon its due analysis, and accordingly, the revisionist got registered, a complaint against the accused ie., the respondent no. 1 herein. 3. After a fulfledged trial before the Court of learned Magistrate, the respondent herein was held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 16 [1](a) (i) and Section 7 [i] of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in Criminal Case No. 3501 of 2009 and ordered to undergo sentence for a term of six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/­; and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 4. Aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad rendered in Criminal Case No. 3501 of 2009 dated 11.12.2013, the respondent herein preferred Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2014 before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, which eventually did not turn in favour of the applicant­Food Inspector and therefor, the present revision application. 5. Heard learned advocate Ms. Shaili A Kapadia appearing for the applicant­Food Inspector and Ms. M.H.Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent no. 2­State of Gujarat. 6. Ms. Kapadia, learned advocate for the applicant vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal terming it to be contrary to the prevailing law and against the provisions of the statute. 5. Heard learned advocate Ms. Shaili A Kapadia appearing for the applicant­Food Inspector and Ms. M.H.Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent no. 2­State of Gujarat. 6. Ms. Kapadia, learned advocate for the applicant vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal terming it to be contrary to the prevailing law and against the provisions of the statute. She contended that the learned appellate Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence available on the record, rendering the decision to be illegal and manifestly erroneous. Counsel for the applicant­ revisionist further contended that the appellate Court has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence where only one view is possible, as the offence against the respondent­accused was duly proved beyond reasonable double before the trial Court. She assailed the impugned appellate judgment and order terming it to be perverse on the face of the record. According to her, no other view was possible; except the one drawn by the trial Court of convicting the respondent. She drew attention of this Court to the serious error of law and fact committed by the appellate Court in holding that there being violation of Section 13 [2] of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the rules made thereunder; particularly Rules 14 & 20 thereof. She added that the learned appellate Judge has not given any proper reason for arriving at such a conclusion. Counsel further added that the learned appellate Judge has not properly appreciated that there is due compliance and adherence to the rules framed under the Act of 1954. The bottle, spoon, etc., were made neat and clean prior to filling up the goods. Not only that, the appellate Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of Peon­Shri Yagnik Punjabhai Mewada [at Exh. 49]. 7. Learned Counsel for the applicant lastly contended that when the option was also given to the accused to get its sample re­analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory and when there was no violation of provisions of Section 13 [2] of the Act, the finding recorded by the appellate Court is thoroughly misconceived and calls for interference in the revisional stage. 8. Learned APP Ms. M.H.Bhatt appearing for the respondent no.2­State of Gujarat has argued the matter on the lines of material available on the record of the matter and urged this Court to pass appropriate orders. 9. 8. Learned APP Ms. M.H.Bhatt appearing for the respondent no.2­State of Gujarat has argued the matter on the lines of material available on the record of the matter and urged this Court to pass appropriate orders. 9. Having heard learned advocates and upon perusal of the material available on the record, prima facie, the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionist­Food Inspector by learned advocate Ms. Shaili Kapadia does not find favour in the present revision application preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Here this Court would like to consider the depositions of the Food Inspector wherein, he has clearly admitted in his cross­examination that when samples were taken by him, it was not spiring in the proper way as well as samples which were placed in the bottle. He has no idea whether it was cleaned up and cleared. There was no evidence available with the prosecution of cleaning the bottles wherein the samples were placed. It is admitted position that bottles were not cleaned up at the place of taking samples. There was no evidence available with the prosecution in samples were spiring with spoon or spoon was cleaned up by him. It also appears from the record that after taking the samples, it was necessary to divide the samples in three parts, but it appears that samples were taken in three different bottles and formalin were added thereafter. Therefore, learned Appellate court has committed no error in allowing the appeal of the respondent­ accused. The judgment and order impugned in the present revisional proceedings does not call for interference; particularly when it does not challenge its legality and validity. The appellate Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2014 has not committed any illegality or perversity in conducting the appeal preferred by the respondent­accused against the order of the trial Court. The appellate Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2019 has extensively heard learned advocates appearing for the respective sides; gone through the record available before it; had framed the issues, and given cogent and convincing reasons for reversing the order of conviction and sentence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings and conclusion recording acquittal of the respondent no.1 – accused are erroneous much less per verse which would call for any interference in the present revision application. 10. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings and conclusion recording acquittal of the respondent no.1 – accused are erroneous much less per verse which would call for any interference in the present revision application. 10. This Court has also gone through minutely into the record of the matter; more particularly the impugned judgment and order, wherein, the learned Appellate Judge has dealt with the issue framed therein, by corroborating the version of the complainant and his witness Yagnik Punjalal Mevada, perusing the documentary evidence adduced on the record. The appellate Court has also dealt with the authorities pressed into service on behalf of the applicant­Food Inspector in the case of State of Gujarat v. Pradeepkumar Jamnadas Doodhwala [Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 2003 : Decided on 29.03.2010]; State of Gujarat vs. Arvind Kumar Chunilal Shah [2010 FAJ 519] as well as those pressed into service by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent­ accused in the cases of [a] Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Lalbhai Chandubhai Dattani [Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 2011 :: Decided on 13.07.2011]; [b] Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Pravinbhai Chimanbhai Patni [Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2011 :: Decided on 13.07.2011]; [c] Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Limited vs. Vasantbhai Kanaiyalal Gupta [Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 2011 :: Decided on 13.7.2011]; [d] B.H.Patel Food Inspector vs. Laxmandas Sevaram [Crimes 2017 page 1441]; and [e] Vimal B Chauhan v. Kalubhai Ambalal Jesani [Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2011 :: Decided on 13.7.2011] so also in the matter between State of Gujarat v. Barkatali Piyarali Khoja [Criminal Appeal No, 1382 of 2008 : Decided on 19.4.2016]. Moreover, learned counsel for the revisionist was unable to convince this Court as to whether the prosecution has followed the mandatory provision of Rules. In the facts of the case I am in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the appellate Court. 11. It is settled legal position that in a revision application moved against an order of acquittal, the revisional Court is not required to re­write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court has already given cogent and convincing reasons and thereby reversed the findings arrived at by the trial Court. 12. 11. It is settled legal position that in a revision application moved against an order of acquittal, the revisional Court is not required to re­write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court has already given cogent and convincing reasons and thereby reversed the findings arrived at by the trial Court. 12. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the appellate Court, while acquitting the respondent no.1 – 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 Criminal Revision Application requires to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the present revision application is hereby rejected. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil Court No. 11, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2014 acquitting the respondent No.1 – accused stands confirmed.