IMPORTANT POINT
In acquittal appeal, Appellate Court is not required to re-write judgment or to give fresh reasoning when Appellate Court is in agreement with reasons assigned by trial Court acquitting accused.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.1.2004 passed by the learned JMFC, Valbhipur, in Criminal Case No. 186/1994, whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section 2(1A)(A), 7(i) & 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, levelled against him.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

2.1. It is the case of the prosecution that Food Inspector on 4.3.1994 visited the shop of respondents-accused, and has taken the sample of Ravo (Loose) and purchased the same and paid the price, cash memo was taken and after following the procedure the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, for analysis and as per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated. On these facts, the complaint was filed before the Court, which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 186/1994 against the respondent. At the time of trial, evidence was led before the trial Court. The documents were produced and oral evidence of the witnesses were also recorded by the trial Court and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has passed the order of acquittal which is impugned in this appeal.

3. It was contended by learned APP Ms. Mini Nair for the appellant that the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. She has also argued that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. She has argued that Food Inspector has followed the rules prescribed by law and he has also followed the procedure of taking the sample and the contents of Form No.6 etc are just and proper. The sample was seized and sealed properly. Yet, the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of prosecution. Therefore, the order impugned in this appeal passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be quashed and set aside.

4. It is a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents-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 appeal requires to be dismissed.

5. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr.1 the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:

“16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.”

6. Similar principle has been laid down b