Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shaileshkumar Pravinchandra Shah on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 678 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHAILESHKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA SHAH & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS ZEEL RAVAL, ADVOCATE for MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 23/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kapadvanj (hereinafter referred to as 'the Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined learned Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 1459 of 2008 dated 12.11.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents - accused from the offences punishable under Section 37(1)(6) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
1.1. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as they stood in the rank and file in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. On 27-09-2007, Junior Inspector, Legal Metrology and Director, Consumer Affairs Office, Kheda District, Shri Ramanbhai Maganbhai Patel along with Assistant Inspector, J.B.Bhagat paid a surprise visit at 'Balark Enterprise' at Kapadwanj and checked the weighing instrument, on which, Champion Max Cap 50kg, Class-
III, Serial No.070713 manufactured by "Deergh Instruments, Akar Complex, Narol, Ahmedabad was written. The owner of 'Balark Enterprise', Rakeshbhai Dilipbhai Bhatt stated that he had Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined purchased the machine from 'Vijay Marketing Services', Vishalnagar, Isanpur, Ahmedabad, vide Bill No.165 dated 18.07.2007 and the maximum capacity was 50kgs, but it showed more than the capacity and as the offence under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 was made out, a panchnama, in the presence of panch witnesses, was drawn and the machine was seized and a receipt was given to Rakeshbhai Dilipbhai Bhatt at the spot and the accused no. 1 was the manufacturer of the instrument and the owner of "Dheergh Instrument"and the accused no. 2 was the owner of 'Vijay Marketing Services' and after obtaining the consent of the Competent Authority as required under the provisions of the Act, the Junior Inspector filed complaint under section 37 (1)(6) of the Standard of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 before the learned Trial Court, which was registered as Criminal Case No.1459 of 2008.
2.2. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and the accused was duly served with the summons and appeared before the learned Trial Court and the plea of the accused was Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined recorded at Exhs. 4 and 5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the complaint and the entire evidence of the complainant was taken on record. The complainant examined 5 witnesses and produced 9 documentary evidences in support of the case.
2.3. After the closing pursis was filed at Exh. 33, the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded, wherein, in the accused denied the evidence on record. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, was pleased to acquit the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 37(1)(6) of the Act.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined principles of natural justice. The learned Trial Court has erred in evaluating the evidence on record of the case and without appreciating the evidence in its real perspective, acquitted the accused, has acquitted the accused for the offence. There are direct and indirect evidence connecting the respondents with the crime which are produced in the Court and in spite of the fact, the learned Trial Court, without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, straight way arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses which was fully supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is without giving any cogent and convincing reasons, illegal, invalid and improper, and therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State and learned advocate Ms. Zeel Raval for learned advocate Mr.Ankit Shah for the respondent No.1 and 2. Perused Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re- appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence and impose maximum sentence on the accused. Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 :
AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) ........ From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;] (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of ac- quittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong cir-Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined cumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an ap- pellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phrase- ologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to in- terfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own con- clusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence avail- able to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquit- tal, the presumption of his innocence is further rein- forced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
7. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e.
(i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
8. The complainant, PW-1 Sudhirkumar Shantilal Dave examined at Exh.8, has narrated all the facts as stated in the complaint, which is produced at Exh.1, and in the cross- examination, has admitted that he has filed the complaint only on the basis of the office order, but he has not verified about the complaint. That he was not present at the time of the surprise visit at 'Balark Enterprise' and he has no personal knowledge about the Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined incident. The witness has produced the office order, by which, the permission was given to file the complaint at Exh.9, and on perusal of the same, the serial number of the machine is 070713. 8.1. PW-2 Rakeshbhai Dilipbhai examined at Exh.10 is the partner of 'Balark Enterprise', at whose premises, the machine was checked by the Junior Inspector R.M.Patel and he has stated that the inspector had come for inspection and had seized the machine. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that he was present at the time of the panchnama, but the panchnama has not been dictated by him and he had given an order of an Electronic Weighing Scale of 200 kgs. and had purchased the same. That when he had purchased the Electronic Weighing Scale, the measures and seals were proper and the bill too was according to the weighing scale. The weighing scale was purchased in the name of 'Balark Enterprise' and he did not inform the person, from whom, the machine was purchased. That the stamp is of 50kgs on the machine. The machine was purchased on 18.07.2007 and the inspection was carried out on 27.09.2007 and he had given the bill 4 to 5 days after the machine was inspected.
Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined 8.2. PW-3 Ramanbhai Maganbhai Patel, Junior Inspector, who had paid the visit at 'Balark Enterprise' has been examined at Exh.16 and has supported the complaint. During the cross- examination, he has stated that any Electronic Weighing Scale is stamped after it is verified and if the machine has a defect, they would not stamp the same. While they were checking the machine at 'Balark Enterprise', they were told that a machine of 200 kg. was ordered by 'Balark Enterprise' and machine Nos. 70711 and 70713 were verified on the same day. The witness has also admitted that the machine was found at 'Balark Enterprise', but 'Balark Enterprise' has not been arraigned as an accused. That he had taken only one person in the panchnama and Rakeshbhai Dilipbhai, the owner of 'Balark Enterprise', had stated that he had given an order for a machine of 200kgs. The witness has produced a bill of 'Vijay Marketing Services' at Exh.17, and on perusal of the same, the bill is dated 18.07.2007, Bill No.165 issued in the name of 'Balark Enterprise' Kapadvanj for the Electronic Weighing Scale Serial No. 070711. The witness has also produced the verification certificates of machine No. 070713 at Exh.19 and 070711 at Exh.20 Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined and the document at Exh.20 shows the machine No. 070713 having maximum capacity of 50kgs, and the document at Exh.20 shows the machine No. 070711 having maximum capacity of 100 / 200 kgs. The Muddamal receipt is produced at Exh.21 and the serial number of the machine is 070713.
8.3. PW-4 Jyotindrabhai Bhagwandas examined at Exh.25 is the Assistant Inspector, who had gone for the surprise inspection to "Balark Enterprise" along with Junior Inspector R.S.Patel. The witness has narrated and supported the complaint, and during the cross-examination, has admitted that the stamping plate is sealed by their department and if the stamping plate is required to be changed, the seal has to be broken, and without breaking the seal, the stamp cannot be changed. They did not give any certificate during their visit to 'Balark Enterprise' and he cannot say if there was any change after the machine was sold to 'Balark Enterprise'. The machine was found at 'Balark Enterprise', but Balark Enterprise' has not been made as an accused, and he had seen the seal, which was properly affixed, but he does not know as to whether the manufacturer was given a notice or not. Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined Both of the seals are affixed by the inspector, who verifies the machine.
8.4. PW-5 Dharmendrakumar Vishnuprasad is the panch witness, who has stated that he had affixed his signature on the panchnama, which is produced at Exh.26. The witness has stated that he did not read the panchnama, but was told to affix his signature, and thereafter, he went out and he does not know what procedure was undertaken by them.
9. If the entire evidence of the complainant is perused, it appears that the machine, that was wrongly stamped, was found at the premises of 'Balark Enterprise' and PW-3 Ramanbhai Maganbhai Patel and PW-4 Jyotindra Bhagwandas had gone for a surprise inspection visit to 'Balark Enterprise' situated in Kapadvanj Mall on 27.09.2007 and found that the machine was wrongly stamped. In the evidence, it has emerged that the seals on the stamp were affixed by the inspectors of the department and the certificates are produced at Exh.19 and Exh.20. The document at Exh.19 is for the machine No. 070713 and the document at Exh.20 Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined is for the machine No. 070711. In the evidence, it has also emerged that the seals were not tampered with and the stamps were not changed, and even otherwise, the machine was found from the premises of 'Balark Enterprise', but 'Balark Enterprise' or the owner of 'Balark Enterprise' has not been arraigned as an accused in the matter. The learned Trial Court has considered and discussed all the evidence in detail and has concluded that the complainant has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and has passed the impugned judgment and order.
10. In view of the above, the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/678/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2025 undefined with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
11. The impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kapadvanj in Criminal Case No. 1459 of 2008 dated 12.11.2010 is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Jul 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 25 00:25:03 IST 2025