JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.11.2008 rendered by learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nadiad in Food Case No.1 of 2007. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 10.11.2006 at about 18.00 hours, the complainant visited the place of the respondent accused situated at Juna Makhanpura, Rabarivad, Nadiad along with panch witness and the respondent was found dealing in provisional items. The complainant identified himself as a Food Inspector and after giving intimation in Form No.6 has purchased muddamal sample of mustard seeds in the presence of the panchas for the purpose of analysis. Thereafter, the complainant Food Inspector has divided the said sample in equal three parts and after completing formalities of packing and sealing obtained signatures of the vendor and panchas and out of the said three parts, one part was sent to the Public Analyst, Vadodara for analysis and remaining two parts were sent to the Local Health Authority, Gandhinagar. Thereafter, the Public Analyst forwarded his report. In the said report, it is stated that the muddamal sample of mustard seeds is misbranded which is in breach of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”) and the Rules framed thereunder. It is alleged that, therefore, the sample of mustard seeds was misbranded and, thereby, the accused has committed the offence. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondent accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the summons were issued against the accused and the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate in pursuance of the summons. 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined 2 witnesses and produced various documentary evidences. After recording the evidence, the charge was framed against the accused at Exh.55. 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 respondent accused. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 7. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 7. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly reiterated the grounds urged in the memo of appeal and contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. She submitted that since the report of the Public Analyst as well as report submitted by the Central Food Laboratory clearly indicate that sample of mustard seeds was found to be misbranded as both the laboratories found that sample of mustard seeds was adulterated with black colour coating. She further pointed out that even though there may be some irregularities in the proceedings, but ultimately, both the reports are clearly disclosing that sample in question was found to be adulterated and it is in clear violation of the provisions of law. 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. On the other-hand, Mr.Modi, learned advocate for the respondent 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. Mr.Modi 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. He submitted that the present appellant accused while exercising the option given under sub-section (2) of section 13 submitted the application for sending the second sample for being analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and accordingly, the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. He submitted that the report of the Central Food Laboratory is totally contradictory to the report submitted by the Public Analyst and that the Central Food Laboratory had not found any water soluble colouring matter in the sample of mustard seeds in question. He submitted that since the accused had exercised the option under subsection (2) of section 13 of the Act, further proceedings as provided under sub-section 2(D) of the Act, the learned trial Court was not competent to continue the said proceedings pending before it in relation to the prosecution until the receipt of the certificate of the result of analysis from the Central Food Laboratory. Similarly, he submitted that in view of sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act, report given by the Public Analyst under subsection (1) of section 13 of the Act gets superseded upon arrival of the report from the Central Food Laboratory and therefore, no prosecution could be launched upon the report of the Public Analyst, though Record and Proceedings clearly indicates that the accused was charged upon the report of the Public Analyst and surprisingly, learned Magistrate has totally overlooked the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore while framing the charge which is not permissible in view of the clear provisions of section 13 of the Act as such. He submitted that since learned Magistrate has proceeded against the accused in clear violation of section 13 of the Act while overlooking the report of the Central Food Laboratory and concentrating upon the report of the Public Analyst which came to be superseded and therefore, no interference is called for so far as acquittal rendered by learned trial Court is concerned on the basis of the aforesaid contentions as well as while recording other contravention of the provisions of law. 9. This Court has heard Ms.H.B.Punani, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr.D.K.Modi, learned advocate for the respondent accused. 10. This Court has minutely gone through the paper book as well as the impugned judgment rendered by learned Magistrate. 11. On overall evaluation of the evidence on record, it can be noticed that learned trial Court framed the charge at Exh.55 wherein it is clearly alleged that sample in question sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated and in clear violation of the standards established under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. The Record and Proceedings clearly indicates that the accused had exercised the option of sending the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory and learned trial Court also received the report from the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Mysore at page 101 of the paper-book which clearly indicates absence of adulteration of black colour coating and water soluble black colour though sample was found coated with black material according to the opinion of the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. In spite of the aforesaid report dated 8.5.2007 which was very much on record though while framing the charge on 30.9.2008, learned trial Court overlooked the provisions of sub-sections (2D) and(3) of section 13 of the Act. 12. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the provisions of section 13 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act reads as under. “13. Report of public analyst.- [(1) The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. (2A) When an application is made to the court under sub-section (2), the court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by the said Authority and upon such requisition being made, the said Authority shall forward the part or parts of the sample to the court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition. (2B) On receipt of the part or parts of the sample from the Local (Health) Authority under sub-section (2A), the court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 11 are intact and the signature or thumb impression, as the case may be, is not tampered with, and despatch the part or, as the case may be, one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of the analysis. (2C) Where two parts of the sample have been sent to the court and only one part of the sample has been sent by the court to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2B), the court shall, as soon as practicable, return the remaining part to the Local (Health) Authority and that Authority shall destroy that part after the certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has been received by the court: Provided that where the part of the sample sent by the court to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is lost or damaged, the court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part of the sample, if any, retained by it to the court and on receipt thereof, the court shall proceed in the manner provided in sub-section (2B). (2D) Until the receipt of the certificate of the result of the analysis from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, the court shall not continue with the proceedings pending before it in relation to the prosecution. (2D) Until the receipt of the certificate of the result of the analysis from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, the court shall not continue with the proceedings pending before it in relation to the prosecution. (2E) If, after considering the report, if any, of the food inspector or otherwise, the Local (Health) Authority is of the opinion that the report delivered by the public analyst under sub-section (1) is erroneous, the said Authority shall forward one of the parts of the sample kept by it to any other public analyst for analysis and if the report of the result of the analysis of that part of the sample by that other public analyst is to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (2D) shall, so far as may be, apply.] (3) The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory [under sub-section (2B)] shall supersede the report given by the public analyst under sub-section (1). (4) Where a certificate obtained from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory [under sub-section (2B)] is produced in any proceeding under this Act, or under sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), it shall not be necessary in such proceeding to produce any part of the sample of food taken for analysis. (4) Where a certificate obtained from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory [under sub-section (2B)] is produced in any proceeding under this Act, or under sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), it shall not be necessary in such proceeding to produce any part of the sample of food taken for analysis. (5) Any document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst, unless it has been superseded under subsection (3), or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act or under sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860): [Provided that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory [not being a certificate with respect to the analysis of the part of the sample of any article of food referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1A) of section 16] shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.] [Explanation.-In this section, and in clause (f) of sub-section (l) of section 16, “Director of the Central Food Laboratory” shall include the officer for the time being in charge of any Food Laboratory (by whatever designation he is known) recognised by the Central Government for the purposes of this section.]” 13. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law makes it clear that as and when the accused has exercised option of sending second sample to the Central Food Laboratory, the Court shall not continue with the proceedings pending before it in relation to the prosecution until receipt of certificate of result of analysis from the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The Record and Proceedings clearly indicates that though the report was very much on record since 8.5.2007 though thereafter about a year later on, learned Magistrate overlooking the aforesaid report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory framed charge relying upon the report of the Public Analyst which got superseded in view of the clear provisions of sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act and therefore, entire procedure gets vitiated and it is in clear violation of the provisions of section 13 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Magistrate basing its reason upon the report of the Public Analyst and violation of other provisions of law calls for no interference since the entire proceedings get vitiated in view of clear provisions of section 13 of the Act. 14. 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. 15. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. 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. 16. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.