Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.@mdashThe State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27.4.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 434/1993 (94/1983) by which the accused-respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 50 of PFA Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Food Inspector Ramgopal Sharma PW.1 on 13.9.1983 at about 10.30 at Shahpura checked a accused-respondent who was on cycle with drum of milk due to adulteration in milk and he found adulterated milk. He prepared form. No. 6 for sample of milk and purchased 660 ml. Milk and received a slip and filled the milk in three blank bottle in equal quantity and poured 18 drops of farming and sealed intact and sent it to public analyst. A fared checking prepared at the site, when the milk was found to be adulterated it sent to the office of CMHO Jaipur for prosecution where challan was filed, when all the supported documents were available on record but the learned Court without applying his mind acquitted accused respondent.
3. The learned trial Court has framed the charges for the offence u/s 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 50 of PFA Act against the accuse-respondent. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondent, but he pleaded not guilty and claimed form trial.
4. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 3 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
5. After hearing both the sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahapura, Distt. Jaipur vide its judgment dated 27.4.2000 acquitted the accused respondent from the offence charged against him.
6. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order and judgment of the learned trial Court dated 27.4.2000, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal.
7. In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and without appreciating the prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused-respondent from the charge framed against him. He has further contended that the evidence of Food Inspector sufficient to prove the case.
8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel Mr. Sudhanshu Joshi appearing on behalf the accused-respondent has submitted that star witnesses of the prosecution PW-2 Gangacharan & PW-3 Umakant have been declared hostile and these two witnesses are independent witnesses. He has also contended that the accused respondent facing trial from last 25 years which is tentamounts to punishment.
I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case.
9. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 27.4.2000 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondent.
10. 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 for the offence for which who has been charged and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondent.
11. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court:
Umrao v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2006 10 SC 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "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 v\\Zpoun below."
12. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though 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 view of the trial judge 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. Therefore, this Court docs 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.
13. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.4.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur. The accused-respondent is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bond stand discharged.
