[CASE NUMBER] JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472 of 2003 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Sd/- 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as No to the interpretation of the [ACT] or any order made thereunder ? [ENTITY] Appellant(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 6 Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) Appearance: MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR DK MODI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4 , 6 MR MD MODI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 , 3 - 4 , 6 [ENTITY], ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 7 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 20/02/2015 Page 1 of 10 [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY]
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant
- original complainant (Food Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation, Surat) has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.05.2002 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal Court) at Surat in [ACT] whereby the accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act').
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :-
The complainant here is the Licensed Food Inspector. On 08.05.2001, the complainant had visited the premises of Deepa Bakery and Provisions. The accused No.2 was present and there was [CASE NUMBER] JUDGMENT sale of edible food products going on. On checking the premises, over the deep freezer as well inside, 10 polypack pouches each of 500 grams containing 'Aamras' (milk soluble) were stacked up.
After duly intimating the accused No.2, for sending the samples of the above product to the Public Analyst at Surat, the same were packed in glass bottles. The report received that 'it was misbranded article of food'.
Hence, complaint was lodged against the manufacturer, stockist and retailer of the above item under the above Sections. The complaint was present before the Court on 29.08.2001 and therefore, process was initiated against the accused. At the end of trial, all the accused were acquitted by the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal Court) at Surat and hence, this Appeal.
4. The prosecution had examined [CASE NUMBER] JUDGMENT witnesses and had relied on several oral and documentary evidences.
5. In the above background of facts, it is submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in holding that the panchnama was having some scratches made or there was some over-writing but instead he should have appreciated the fact that the report of the sample tested showed that the same was not upto the mark and was misbranded. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has further erred in wrongly appreciating the reports of the Public Analyst as well as the Central Food Laboratory. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate requires to be upturned by this Court.
6. The principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex [CASE NUMBER] JUDGMENT Court in catena of decisions. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In paragraph [SECTION] of the said decision, the Court has observed as under :-
"[SECTION]. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the [CASE NUMBER] JUDGMENT material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."
7. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of [PRECEDENT] and in [PRECEDENT]. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
8. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court in Para-4 has held as under :
"4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of [CASE NUMBER] JUDGMENT oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under [SECTION] of [ACT] and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be re appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in [CASE NUMBER] JUDGMENT approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [[PRECEDENT]]."
9. It is a settled legal position that in an acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. On the touchstone of these judgments, the principles enunciated therein go to show that the finding of fact recorded in the said impugned judgment cannot be said to be perverse and this view is based on facts.
10. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court has narrated the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal.
[CASE NUMBER] JUDGMENT In Para-54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under :-
"54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below."
11. Having perused the records of the case and considering the submissions advanced, I do not find any perversity in the judgment and order dated 13.05.2002 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal Court) at Surat in [ACT]. The evidence cannot be said to be bad in law. The learned Magistrate has also held that considering the provisions of [CASE NUMBER] JUDGMENT the Act and the Rules thereunder, no case is made out to convict the accused.
12. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal Court) at Surat in [ACT] and therefore, the said judgment and order stands confirmed.
13. The Appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. Bail and bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent to the Trial Court forthwith.
([ENTITY], J.) CAROLINE