The appellate court must respect acquittals unless clear errors are established, emphasizing that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant – Original Complainant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat (hereinafter be referred to as “learned Trial Court”) in Municipal Case No. 3451 of 2007 dated 27.04.2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 381 , 382, 392(1)(A) of the BOMBAY PROVINCIAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT , 1949 (hereinafter be referred to as “the BPMC Act”).

1.1. The respondent No.1 is hereinafter referred toas ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is a Sanitary Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation and while he was on round for checking on 23.06.2007, he found that the accused, without having any licence from the concerned authority, was doing an activity of selling goat meat in the open market, and thereby, the accused was creating filth in public. On that basis, a private complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court, Surat on 09.08.2007.

2.2. After considering the complaint, the learned Trial Court issued process under section 204 of Cr.P.C. against accused and on appearance of the accused, he was provided the papers under section 207 of Cr.P.C and the plea of the accused was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the complaint and the entire evidence provided by the complainant was taken on record. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined 02 witnesses at Exh.9 and Exh.15 and has also produced 04 documentary evidences.

2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.16, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat, the appellant - Surat Municipal Corporation through Sanitary Inspector has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned order is illegal and wrong in observing that there is contradiction between the report and the complaint and the evidence is doubtful. The impugned order is also bad in law as there is nothing wrong to have sanction in a printed form as it itself does not reflect that the sanction was mechanical or cyclostyle. The impugned order is otherwise also contrary to facts, evidence and law of the matter and the same is recorded in a very cursory and cavalier manner. The impugned order suffers from perversity of finding and also the same is null, void ab intio and non-est. That the impugned order reflects non-application of mind by the learned Trial Court. The impugned order is illogical, irrational and without rhyme and reason and also contrary to settled principles of law and suffers from infirmity and reflects manifest error of law and the impugned order is dehors the statutory provisions.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manan Mehta for the Appellant - original Complainant and learned APP Mr. Meet Thakkar for the respondent No.2- State. Though served, the respondent No.1 has not appeared either in person or through an advocate. P