The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of interference in acquittal appeals, emphasizing the presumption of innocence, the need for compelling circumstances to justify interference with an order of acquittal, and the importance of reappreciating the evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah for the respondent-State at length. Though served, none is appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. The appellant – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 03.02.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 88 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 7(I) read with Section 16(1)(A)(I) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.03.2004 at 2:30 pm. complainant and his peon Mavjibhai M. Miyatra visited the shop No. 118 Trirupati Complex Kalupur Chokha Bazar, Ahmedabad. At that time, accused was present and he was doing his business. Therefore, complainant called Shri Guralmal Budhrmal Kaghani as an independent panch witness and complainant introduced himself as a Food Inspector. At the time of inspection, complainant found food item and therefore, complainant inquired about food product which was lying in plastic bag and about its quality and price to the accused it was informed that it is a turmeric powder and complainant purchased the 750 grams powder and paid Rs. 22.50ps. Complainant inquired about ownership of the business and accused did not produce any documentary evidence. Appellant gave oral and written intimation to the present accused. After following due procedure of sealing and packing, one part of the sample was sent to Public Health Laboratory of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for analyses. As per the report under PFA Rules, 1955, sample was adulterated. Therefore, after following due procedure of sanction complaint came to be lodged against the accused. Thereafter the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has acquitted the accused person. Therefore, appellant – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has preferred appeal under sec. 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against order of acquittal.

4. Learned advocate Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has taken this Court at different depositions as deposed by the witness and submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed error in appreciation of evidence and contended that the learned Magistrate has committed error in arriving at the acquittal of the accused person and therefore appeal may be allowed and reversion be made to the extent the conviction of the accused person.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah for the respondent - State has heavily contended that the learned Magistrate has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused person and therefore, there is no need of interference by this Court and the appeal may be dismissed.

6. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the materials available on record, this Court would like to refer as under:

6.1 Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be worthwhile to refer to the scope of interference in acquittal appeals. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is prejudice 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 reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.

6.2 Further, 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. Further, while exercising