S.B.Cr.Appeal No.708/2007. State of Rajasthan. Versus. Shankar lal S/O.Ram Pratap & Another. 03.9.2008. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma. Mr.B.N.Sandu Public Prosecutor. Mr.Praveen Jain for the accused respondent. This is an Appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 30.3.2001 passed by Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act & Sessions Judge,Tonk, in Cr.Case No.3/98, whereby he has acquitted the accused respondent from offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.8.98, the Enforcement Officer,Tonk, has made a complaint against the accused respondents stating therein that the accused respondents having Ration Shop. At the time ..2.. of checking, the Enforcement Officer it was found that the accused persons distributing retail ration materials. When the complainant checking the stock register the stock of oil was not show in it. But he has shown 300 Ltrs of excess Diesel, the accused respondent has also not shown the proper distribution of kerosene oil. On the aforesaid complaint, the trial court has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential commodities Act. Thereafter the learned trial court framed charge against the accused respondents for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Charges were read over and explained to the accused respondent who denied the charges and claimed for trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses ..3.. and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of accused respondents were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court through his judgment dated 30.3.2001, acquitted the accused respondents from the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 30.3.2001 passed by the trial court the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal. In this appeal, Mr.B.N.Sadu learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the trial court has not appreciated the statements of prosecution witnesses properly and wrongly acquitted the accused respondents, hence, the judgment passed by the trial court is erroneous one and liable to be quashed and set-aside. ..4.. He further contended that the guilty of the accused persons is well proved by the physical verification of stock, by which excess stock was there, but the learned trial court without considering this aspect, illegally acquitted the accused respondents. Therefore, the judgment and order of the trial court is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set-aside. On the other hand, Mr.Praveen Jain Advocate appearing on behalf of accused respondents contended that the trial court has appreciated the prosecution evidence and after proper appreciation of evidence, rightly acquitted the accused respondents. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court with the judgment passed by the trial court. He urged to this Court that there are major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses to each other. ..5.. Mr.Jain further urged to this Court that the star witnesses of the prosecution case namely, P.W.10.Lala, P.W.1 Bajarang Lal Dobi, P.W.12 Dev Karan, P.W,.13 Ram Prasad, P.W.14 Shankar Lal Balai, P.W.15 Sukh Dev have been declared hostile. He has drawn attention of this Court that Mens rea is essential ingredient of criminal offence. In support of his contention, relied upon a judgment of Apex Court in Nathu Lal Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1966 Sc 43 (V 53 C 12), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- “(a) Penal Code (1860) S.40-Mens rea is essential ingredient of criminal offence unless excluded by statute-Statute creating offence-Interpretation of -Exclusion of means rea by necessary implication- Matters to be considered. (b) Essential Commodities Act (1955), Section 7- Offence under – Mens rea is essential ingredient -Storage of Food ..6.. grains in excess of quantity prescribed by S.3(2) Madhya Pradesh Food grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958, after applying for requisite permit- Accused not informed about rejection of his application- Intentional contravention of s.7 held could not be inferred.” Mr.Jain urged to this Court that the accused respondents are facing trial for the last 20 years which itself is tantamount to humiliation and punishment. The prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the accused respondents have committed guilty and the learned trial curt has rightly acquitted the accused respondents. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 30.3.2001, passed by the trial court, I find the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the ..7.. offence against the accused-respondents. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous one. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umrao Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,reported in 2006 SC Vol 10 Page 136 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- “It is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below”. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent ..8.. for the offence for which he has been charged and the learned trial court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to disagree with he findings of acquittal recorded by the leaned trial court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. In appeal, the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial judges as to the credibility of the witnesses, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal passed by the court below. ..9.. Therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed by confirming the judgment and order dated 30.3.2001, passed by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act & Sessions Judge,Tonk. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J. k.