CR.A/10/3698 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1036 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= D K SOLANKI, LAW OFFICER - Appellant(s) Versus AMBUJA FOODS LTD. & 7 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KP SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1 - 7. MR PRAKASH THAKKAR, SR. ADVOCATE for Opponent(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 2, MS MITA PANCHAL, APP for Opponent(s) : 8, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 22/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – Law Officer under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment and order 26th CR.A/10/3698 2/5 JUDGMENT December, 1997, rendered in Criminal Case No. 1693 of 1990, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kadi, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused from the offences charged against them. 2. It is the case of the appellant – original complainant that as Law officer in Gujarat Pollution Control Board he was authorized to prosecute the persons who commit the breach of the provision of Section 4 of the Water (Prevention of Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short “the Water Act”). The respondent No.1 is a limited company and the respondents No.2 to 6 are the Directors and the respondent No.7 is the Manager of the said respondent No.1 – Company. The respondent No.1 company was producing Aata, Soji, etc. and for that purpose they were using about 3000 ltrs. of water and thereafter the respondents were discharging the polluted water out side in open place without purification. The respondents have not obtained any permission from the Gujarat Water Pollution Control Board (for short “GPCB”). The complainant thereupon had visited the place of the respondents and found that the respondents are discharging the effluent/polluted water without any permission and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under the Water Act. Thereupon the complainant filed Complaint under Sections 24, 25 read with Sections 43, 44 and 47 of the Water Act. 3. The learned JMFC framed the charge Ex.127 against the accused. Thereafter the evidence was led and after hearing the parties the learned Magistrate came to the CR.A/10/3698 3/5 JUDGMENT conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused from the charges levelled against them. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and order dated 26/12/1997 rendered by the learned JMFC, Kadi, in Criminal Case No. 1693 of 1990, the appellant has preferred this Appeal, in the capacity of the complainant. 5. Heard learned APP Ms. Mita Panchal for the State and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Thakkar on behalf of the respondents – original accused. 6. It is contended by learned APP that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provision of law; the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence against the present respondents. Learned APP has also read the oral as well as the documentary evidence. 7. On behalf of the respondents – accused learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Thakker has contended that the matter is very old. The complainant has not verified the fact that from where the polluted water was found and at that time there was a full rainy season and nobody can say that who has committed the offence in question. Lastly, he contended that the learned Magistrate has assigned cogent reasons and after fully appreciating the CR.A/10/3698 4/5 JUDGMENT evidence the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the accused from the offences charged against them. 8. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. From the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. When the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused then the accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and there is no reason to interfere with the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate. 9. It is settled legal position that in acquittal Appeal the appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v/s. HEMAREDDY, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417, has observed that when the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court then the re-discussion of evidence is not necessary. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents – accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. CR.A/10/3698 5/5 JUDGMENT 10.In view of above discussion, I see no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial Court. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed. 11.In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 26.12.1997 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kadi, in Criminal Case No. 1693 of 1990 acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stands cancelled. (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas