Z.K. Saiyed, J.@mdashThe present appeal, u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.8.1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Summary Case No. 1696 of 1996, whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
2.1 The factory Supervisor had made visit on 18.4.1996 at Jagdamba Industries, Naroda, Ahmedabad. Mr. Sureshbhai Mahavirprasad is possessor of the said Unit. The unit is registered u/s 85 of the Factory Act. During the visit of Factory Supervisor, it was found that there were no register maintained by the factory, regarding muster roll, nature of work of the workers and the Factory Supervisor demanded the registers, but same were not given to the Factory Supervisor. Therefore, the possessor had made breach of Rule 110(1) of the Factory Act. Besides this, the Factory Supervisor had complained about the licence, which was not submitted in proper manner. Therefore, there was breach of Section 6(1(D), 3(A) as well as Section 4(1) of the Factory Act. Therefore, the offence is punishable u/s 92 of the Factory Act. Thereafter, three complaints were lodged against the accused and Criminal Cases No. 1696 of 1996 to 1698 of 1996 were consolidated with Criminal Case No. 1696 of 1996.
2.2 Therefore, with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against the respondent before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad for the aforesaid offence and necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C.
2.3 At the end of trial, after hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 29.8.1998.
2.4 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
3. It was contended by learned APP Mr. K.V. Pandya that the judgment and order of the learned Court is against the provisions 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 whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. .
4. At the outset it is required to be noted that 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 Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of
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.
4.1 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:
16. 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 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.
4.2 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. State of MP reported in AIR 2007 SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
5. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State.
6. Mr. K.V. Pandya, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.
7. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him.
8. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
9. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is required to be dismissed.
10. In view of the aforesaid observation, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.
