CR.A/425/1990 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 425 of 1990 With CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 75 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ========================================= 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 ? ========================================= STATE OF GUJ. - Appellant(s) Versus SAIYADALI MAYUDIN KADARI - Opponent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR PD BHATI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SR DIVETIA for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Date : 06/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. As both the appeal and revision are against the common judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First CR.A/425/1990 2/4 JUDGMENT Class, Junagadh dated 15.2.1990 acquitting the original accused for the offences under Section 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act in Criminal Case No.6200 of 1987, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Criminal Appeal No.425 of 1990 is preferred by the State and Revision Application No.75 of 1992 is a suo motu revision and the papers of the Revision Application which were pending before the learned District Judge were called for by this Court as the Appeal was already preferred by the State bearing No.425 of 1990. 3. Heard Mr.P.D.Bhati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr.S.R.Divetia, learned advocate for the appellant at length and in great detail. 4. I have perused the reasons given by the learned Judge while granting acquittal to the present respondent (original-accused) by order dated 15.2.1990. The deposition adduced on behalf of the prosecution is also taken into consideration by me. 5. Having considered the evidence on record and the reasons assigned by the learned Judge. I am of the view that in the order passed by learned Judge no interference is called for. 6. I have also considered the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa Vs. Sajay Thakran and another reported in 2007(3) SCC 755. As per the ratio when the appeal is preferred by the State against the order of acquittal under Section CR.A/425/1990 3/4 JUDGMENT 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, the power of the Appellate Court is very narrow and limited. The Appellate Court can only interfere when the order passed by the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the decision rendered by the lower Court is perverse and the lower Court has committed manifest error of law and ignored material evidence on record of the case. 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 the power to review that evidence if it is of the view that the view arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. 7. This is an acquittal appeal in which Court would be slow to interfere with the order of acquittal. Infirmities in the prosecution case go to the root of the matter and strike a vital blow on the prosecution case. In such a case, it would not be safe to set aside the order of acquittal, more particularly when the evidence has not inspired confidence of the learned Judge who had opportunity to observe demeanour of the witnesses. As this Court is in general agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge, the Court does not think it necessary either to reiterate the evidence of prosecution witnesses or to restate the reasons for acquittal given by the learned Judge and this Court is of the opinion that expression of general agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge would be sufficient in the facts of the case. On overall CR.A/425/1990 4/4 JUDGMENT appreciation of evidence, this Court is satisfied that there is no infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned Judge for acquitting the respondent. Suffice it to say that the learned Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the respondent. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has failed to convince this Court to take a view contrary to the one already taken by the learned Judge and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal and revision fail and are summarily dismissed. (H.B.Antani, J.) sudhir