JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. This appeal is filed under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat (hereinafter be referred to as “trial Court”) in Municipal Case No. 3442 of 2007 dated 12.06.2012 for the offence punishable under sections 381, 382, 392(1)(A) of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 now Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is Sanitary Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation and while he was on round for checking, he found that the respondent accused without having any licence from the concerned authority, was doing an activity of cutting and selling goat meat in the open market and thereby, creating filth in public. On the basis of that private complaint was filed before the trial Court, Surat. 2.1 After considering the complaint, the trial Court has issued process under section 204 of Cr.P.C. against respondent accused and on appearance of the respondent-accused bunch of papers were provided to the respondent-accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Plea of the accused came to be recorded wherein, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined two witnesses below Exh.9 and Exh.16 and also produced documentary evidence i.e. written complaint at Exh.1 and the written arguments at Exh.23 including the sanction given by the superior officer to lodge the prosecution. 2.2 At the end of the trial, the trial Court, after going through the oral as well written evidence and after considering the arguments advanced by both the sides, has acquitted the respondent-accused from the charges by holding that complainant failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and also on the ground that the impugned complaint is filed after around four months from the date of the offence and also on the ground that the panchnama of the place of raided premises was not drawn. 2.3 In view of the above facts, the appellant- Surat Municipal Corporation through Sanitary Inspector has filed present appeal and prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manan Maheta for the appellant original complainant. 2.3 In view of the above facts, the appellant- Surat Municipal Corporation through Sanitary Inspector has filed present appeal and prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manan Maheta for the appellant original complainant. Though, bailable warrant was served upon respondent-accused respondent fails to appear before this Court. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Manan Maheta for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has committed error of law and on facts while discharging the accused by discarding the evidence of the witnesses and also documentary evidence produced on behalf of the complainant. He has submitted that the appellant has established the charge by examining witnesses and to establish the case against the accused, oral and documentary evidence were also produced, however without considering the same, the trial Court has discharged the accused from the charge levelled against him. It is further submitted that the trial Court has committed error in holding that in absence of any rojkam drawn at the place and in absence of the evidence of panch witness, the complainant failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. 3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Manan Maheta has further submitted that the trial court has disbelieved the sanction which was given by the Competent Officer to lodge a prosecution. He has submitted that though the sanction was produced before the trial Court, however without assigning cogent reasons, the trial Court has completely overlooked that and observed that the sanction granted by the Competent Authority is without application of mind, as only two lines were mentioned in the prescribed form and therefore, it cannot be said that it is legal and valid sanction given by the Competent Authority for institution of the complaint against the respondent accused, which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. He has submitted that it is also observed by the trial Court that there is inordinate delay in registering the complaint and there was no explanation given by the complainant for this inordinate delay and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish this fact and therefore, the observations made by the trial Court, in this regard, is erroneous and illegal. He has submitted that it is also observed by the trial Court that there is inordinate delay in registering the complaint and there was no explanation given by the complainant for this inordinate delay and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish this fact and therefore, the observations made by the trial Court, in this regard, is erroneous and illegal. He has submitted that in fact, the trial Court ought to have given proper weightage to the material evidence and the judgment and order of acquittal is against the facts of the case and the respondent accused requires to be convicted for the alleged offence. 4. I have perused the relevant material and documents placed on record. I have also gone through the record of the Appeal and the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court with relevant documents appended thereto. 5. From the record, it transpires that the complaint was filed against the respondent accused under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 now Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The prosecution has examined the Sanitary Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation to establish that in the year 2008 sanction was given to lodge the prosecution against respondent accused by the Commissioner of Health Department, however, there is gross/inordinate delay of around four moths which is unexplained on behalf of the prosecution. Further, there is no details mentioned in the prescribed form and from that it transpires that the authority has not applied the mind while granting sanction for the alleged offence. The prosecution has also examined the witness namely Mr. Mahendra Chhimkabhai Solanki, from his deposition also no illicit material culled out to support the case of the prosecution and from the cross-examination on the contrary, there is no relevant material come on record, which helps the case of the prosecution. It further appears from the record that the raid was carried out in open market therefore, there was availability of the independent witnesses however, neither the statement of independent witnesses were recorded nor the the prosecution has examined witness. Even, the statements of the customers, who were present at that point of time, were also not recorded. Further, the sanction itself creates doubt as the same is not in prescribed form and no application of mind was found in the report and therefore, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondent accused. 6. Even, the statements of the customers, who were present at that point of time, were also not recorded. Further, the sanction itself creates doubt as the same is not in prescribed form and no application of mind was found in the report and therefore, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondent accused. 6. The trial Court has observed that in absence of any cogent and material evidence and in absence of any panchnama and/or any evidence in the nature that the said meat is hazardous to the health of the public at large and creating any pollution and therefore, after considering all these facts, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent accused and under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or any perversity while recording the findings, 7. Now, it is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgments that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. the Court can re-appreciate, review and examine the evidence recorded by the trial Court and after examining the record of the trial Court, if the Appellate Court found that there is any illegality or any perversity in the judgment only under such circumference, the court can entertain the acquittal appeal while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Considering all these aspects and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , and in a series of judgments in case of acquittal that, 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 present case, from bare perusal of the judgment and order passed by the trial court and the material on record, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error while passing the order of acquittal. 9. In present case, from bare perusal of the judgment and order passed by the trial court and the material on record, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error while passing the order of acquittal. 9. It is also relevant to take into account the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, 2022 (3) SCC 471 which reads as under: “After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: “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, re-appreciate 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 curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise 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.” 10. 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.” 10. In the decision in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2024 SC 2252 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “37. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] “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, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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 curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise 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. (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.” 38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence. 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence. 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record. 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible. 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: “(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity. (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record. (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record. (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has enunciated that while exercising the Appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal, though there is two view were possible however, the view which was taken by the trial Court may not be disturbed normally unless and until there is any perversity or any irregularity or any illegality is found from the judgment and order of the trial Court. In present case, learned Counsel for the appellant is unable to establish any error or illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the trial Court. 12. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the observations in the above referred decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order of acquittal. 13. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, there is no warrant for intervention by this court. The appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly hereby dismissed. The bailable warrant issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court is hereby cancelled. 14. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.