JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal, under section 378(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.03.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vyara, in Criminal Case No. 3509 of 1991, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent - accused from the charges levelled against them.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the respondent No. 2 is the registered partnership firm and respondents Nos.3 to 8 are partners of such firm, amongst them respondent No.8 is Manager of respondent No.2 firm. It is alleged that respondent Nos.3 to 8 are responsible and liable for day to day affairs of the firm and they are discharging the polluted water without any process or treatment. It is also alleged that respondents are discharging large quantity of polluted wanter and they have not taken proper permission for that. It is alleged that on 20.03.1991 the officers of the Board have visited the premises for inspection and took the sample of effluent water which was sent for analysis and the report had come on 21.04.1991. It is alleged that the Public Analyst submitted the Report and as per the said Report it was found that the accused have committed the breach of Sections 24, 25, 33(2), 41(2), 43, 44 and 47 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), and therefore, after obtaining sanction complaint has been filed against the respondents - accused. Thereafter, the trial was conducted against the respondents - accused. The trial Court examined the witnesses and also considered the documentary evidence led before it and after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence has acquitted the respondents - accused from the charges levelled against them.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Hardik B. Shah for respondents- original accused and learned APP for respondent- State.

4. It was contended by learned Advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for the appellant that the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. He has also contended that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. He has contended that the Board officials have followed the rules prescribed by law and the official of the Board have also followed the procedure of taking the sample. 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.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Hardik B. Shah, appearing for the respondents - original accused, has supported the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and contended that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents - accused.

6. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant.

6.1 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.

6.2 If we peruse the impugned judgment, it appears that the trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that respondents have obtained NOC, consent order and amended consent order also. Thereby, they have followed due process of law.

6.3 The trial