Appellate courts hold full power to review acquittal evidence; however, they must respect trial court findings that are reasonable, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 4453/1993 on 03.01.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (1) and Section 16 (1)(A) (E) of The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short).

1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 The accused no. 3 – M/s. Divyesh Industries is the manufacturing firm and the accused no. 2 is the nominee of M/s. Divyesh Industries, Junagadh. The accused no. 1 is the partner who has given the sample and as per the case of the prosecution, on 02.12.1991 at around 17.00 hours, the complainant - Food Inspector – S.S. Patel went to the firm and took sample of Eagle Brand Double Filtered Pure Groundnut Oil and after giving the due intimation purchased 450 grams of oil. After the entire procedure, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Vadodara for analysis and as per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh which was registered as Criminal Case No. 4453 of 1993.

2.2 The accused were duly served with the summons and after the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed. The evidence of the complainant was on record and the plea of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 37, 38 and 39 and all the accused denied the contents of the complainant.

2.3 The prosecution examined 2 witnesses and produced 29 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any