The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless clear error or illegality is established, particularly in acquittal cases.

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.3498 of 2007 dated 20.03.2012 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 selling chicken and 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.7 and Exh.13 and also produced documentary evidence i.e. written complaint at Exh.1 and the written arguments at Exh.25 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. 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 res