State Of Gujarat - For & On Behalf Of ... vs Ilesh Himmatlal Bhuptani
2022 Latest Caselaw 6302 Guj

     R/CR.A/1500/2011                                JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1500 of 2011


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                     No

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copyNo
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question No
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT - FOR & ON BEHALF OF R N JOSHI, FOOD INSPEC
                           Versus
            ILESH HIMMATLAL BHUPTANI & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR P B KHANDHERIA(5228) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

                                 Date : 15/07/2022

                                 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. P.B. Khandheria for the respondents at length.

2. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

judgment and order dated 14.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gondal in Criminal Case No. 920 of 1997 for the offences punishable under Sections 2(ia)(a)(f)(m) and Section 7(1)(5) and Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.03.1997 the complainant alongwith Panch Witness visited the premises of the respondent-accused where the accused No.1 was doing his business. Upon checking carried out, the complainant decided to take sample of Soji. The complainant informed the accused that he wanted to analyze this before the Public Analyst and therefore to purchase the same and issue Notice in the prescribed Form No.6 as per Rule 12. Thereafter, the complainant had purchased Soji Mahraja and paid the amount for that. The complainant has obtained the signature of the accused in a receipt regarding receiving of amount. Thereafter, the said sample of Soji was taken in three clean dry bootless which was closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and was carefully sealed after following due procedure of law in the presence of the Panch Witness. The complainant also obtained signatures of panchas in the panchnama he drew at the time of taking sample. Thereafter, he sent the samples to the Public Analyst, for analysis. The Public Analyst after analyzing the sample opined as under:

"The sample of Soji Maharaja does not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the PFA Rules, 1955."

After the report of the Public Analyst, the complainant obtained the permission of Local Health Authority and filed the complaint against the present accused in the Court of the

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gondal being Criminal Case No.920 of 1997.

4. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the State has taken this Court mainly on the depositions as deposed by the witnesses and submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed error in appreciating the evidence. It is submitted that learned Magistrate has not appreciated the Panchwitness and the report of the public analysis since sanction was obtained and the same is on file. It is submitted that learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that before taking sample of Soji, the complainant has not mixed up and did not boil and on such ground that State has taken this Court that it is settled law that the learned Magistrate has committed serious error in holding the acquittal of accused persons. Learned APP contended that learned Magistrate has committed error in appreciating evidence coupled with not considering the Rule 14 of the Food Adulteration Act in arriving at the acquittal of the accused persons and urged to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Lastly it is submitted that the appeal may be allowed and reversion be made to the extent the conviction of the accused persons.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. P.B. Khandheria for the respondents has heavily contended that the learned Magistrate has rightly appreciated the evidence and rightly hold that the prosecution has not observed the mandatory provisions of Section 16(b) & Rule 14 of the Food Adulteration Act. It is submitted that there is no need of interference by this Court and the appeal may be dismissed and confirm the order passed the learned Magistrate.

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

6. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the materials available on record, this Court would like to refer as under:

6.1 Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be worthwhile to refer to the scope of interference in acquittal appeals. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is prejudice in favour of the accused, firstly, the presumption of innocence is available 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 acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.

6.2 Further, 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. Further, 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 arrive at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person, and therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse.

6.3 Merely because two views are possible, the Court of

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

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. That the duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re- appreciate the evidence to arrive to just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused is connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged.

6.4 In Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 752, the Apex Court has observed that, "The presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused gets fortified and strengthened when the said accused is acquitted by the trial Court. Probably, for this reason, the law makers felt that when the appeal is to be filed in the High Court it should not be filed as a matter of course or as matter of right but leave of the High Court must be obtained before the appeal is entertained. This would not only prevent the High Court from being flooded with appeals but more importantly would ensure that innocent persons who have already faced the tribulation of a long drawn out criminal trial are not again unnecessarily dragged to the High Court".

6.5 Yet in another decision in Chaman Lal v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1229 of 2017 on 03.12.2020, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 988 the Apex Court has observed as under:

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

"9.1 In the case of Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC

189), this Court had reiterated the principles to be followed in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 12 to 19, it is observed and held as under:

12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 9 SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 102, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535, Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445)

13. In Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227, the Privy Council observed as under: (IA p. 404) "... the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses."

14. The aforesaid principle of law has consistently been followed by this Court. (See Tulsiram Kanu v. State AIR 1954 SC 1, Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216, M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200, Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar (1970) 2 SCC 450, Sambasivan v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412, Bhagwan Singh v. State of

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

M.P(2002) 4 SCC 85 and State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755)

15. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, this Court reiterated the legal position as under: (SCC p. 432, para 42)

"(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal 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 circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(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 is available 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 acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, 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."

16. In Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P (2008) 10 SCC 450, this Court reiterated the said view, observing that the appellate court in dealing with the cases in which the trial courts have acquitted the accused, should bear in mind that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

The appellate court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court as the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses, and was in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.

17. In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368, the Court again examined the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down that: (SCC p. 374, para 20) "20. ... an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused."

18. In State of U.P. v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271, this Court gave certain illustrative circumstances in which the Court would be justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The circumstances include: (SCC p. 286, para 28) "(i) The High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position;

(ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record;

(iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice;

(iv) The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case;

(v) This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court;

(vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal." A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Dhanapal v. State (2009) 10 SCC 401.

19. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."

9.2 When the findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse has been dealt with and considered in paragraph 20 of the aforesaid decision, which reads as under:

"20. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn (1984) 4 SCC 635, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312, Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 665, Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad (2001) 1 SCC 501, Aruvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206 and Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v.

State of A.P (2009) 10 SCC 636)." (emphasis supplied)

9.3 It is further observed, after following the decision of this Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10, that if a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with.

9.4 In the recent decision of Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 5 SCC 436, this Court again had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 378 Cr.P.C. and the interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. This Court considered catena of decisions of this Court right from 1952 onwards. In paragraph 31, it is observed and held as under:

"31. An identical question came to be considered before this Court in Umedbhai Jadavbhai (1978) 1 SCC 228. In the case before this Court, the High Court interfered with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record. However, the High Court, while reversing the acquittal, did not consider the reasons given by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused.

Confirming the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed and held in para 10 as under: (SCC p. 233)

"10. Once the appeal was rightly entertained against the order of acquittal, the High Court was entitled to

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

reappreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion. Ordinarily, the High Court would give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. This rule will not be applicable in the present case where the Sessions Judge has made an absolutely wrong assumption of a very material and clinching aspect in the peculiar circumstances of the case."

31.1. In Sambasivan v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and held the accused guilty on re- appreciation of the entire evidence on record, however, the High Court did not record its conclusion on the question whether the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. Confirming the order passed by the High Court convicting the accused on reversal of the acquittal passed by the learned trial court, after being satisfied that the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court was perverse and suffered from infirmities, this Court declined to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the High Court.

While confirming the order of conviction passed by the High Court, this Court observed in para 8 as under: (SCC p. 416)

"8. We have perused the judgment under appeal to ascertain whether the High Court has conformed to the aforementioned principles. We find that the High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner laid down by this Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 viz. first recording its conclusion on the question whether the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable, which alone will justify interference in an order of acquittal though the High Court has rendered a well- considered judgment duly meeting all the contentions raised before it. But then will this non-compliance per se justify setting aside the judgment under appeal? We think, not. In our view, in such a case, the approach of the court which is considering the validity of the judgment of an appellate court which has reversed the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, should be to satisfy itself if the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or conclusions arrived at by it are demonstrably unsustainable and

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

whether the judgment of the appellate court is free from those infirmities; if so to hold that the trial court judgment warranted interference. In such a case, there is obviously no reason why the appellate court's judgment should be disturbed. But if on the other hand the court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity, it cannot but be held that the interference by the appellate court in the order of acquittal was not justified; then in such a case the judgment of the appellate court has to be set aside as of the two reasonable views, the one in support of the acquittal alone has to stand. Having regard to the above discussion, we shall proceed to examine the judgment of the trial court in this case."

31.2. In K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 309, after observing that though there is some substance in the grievance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that the High Court has not adverted to all the reasons given by the trial Judge for according an order of acquittal, this Court refused to set aside the order of conviction passed by the High Court after having found that the approach of the Sessions Judge in recording the order of acquittal was not proper and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge on several aspects was unsustainable. This Court further observed that as the Sessions Judge was not justified in discarding the relevant/material evidence while acquitting the accused, the High Court, therefore, was fully entitled to reappreciate the evidence and record its own conclusion. This Court scrutinised the evidence of the eyewitnesses and opined that reasons adduced by the trial court for discarding the testimony of the eyewitnesses were not at all sound. This Court also observed that as the evaluation of the evidence made by the trial court was manifestly erroneous and therefore it was the duty of the High Court to interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

31.3. In Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807, in para 5, this Court observed and held as under: (AIR pp. 80910) "5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the trial court being one of acquittal, the High Court should not have set it aside on mere appreciation of the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution unless it came to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial Judge was perverse. In our opinion, it is not correct to say that unless the appellate court in an appeal under Section 417 Cr.P.C came to

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

the conclusion that the judgment of acquittal under appeal was perverse it could not set aside that order.

It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-established rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence.

It is also well settled that the court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal.

If the appellate court reviews the evidence, keeping those principles in mind, and comes to a contrary conclusion, the judgment cannot be said to have been vitiated. (See in this connection the very cases cited at the Bar, namely, Surajpal Singh v. State AIR 1952 SC 52; Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P AIR 1953 SC 122) In our opinion, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the High Court was not justified in reviewing the entire evidence and coming to its own conclusions.

31.4. In K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1979) 1 SCC 355, this Court has observed that where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, it is the obvious duty of the High Court to interfere in the interest of justice, lest the administration of justice be brought to ridicule."

(emphasis supplied)."

7. This Court has gone through the testimonies as deposed by the prosecution witnesses PW-1 Rajnikant Nanalal Joshi

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

(Exh.50) who was Sanitary Inspector since last ten years and at the time of complaint he was Food Inspector. He tried to deposed as per his complaint that he has admitted that the wooden box was not sealed. He has also admitted that he has not made the three parts 600 grams of samples, which is mandatory under the Rules and therefore in the opinion of this Court that the learned Magistrate has rightly arrived at the benefit of doubt for violation of Rule 14 coupled with Section 16(b) of the Act. Prosecution has also testified PW-2 Jaisingbhai Dodia (Exh.141) who turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that he has no knowledge of the sample, neither of the proceedings and therefore the prosecution has also failed to prove his case independently and hence in the opinion of this Court that learned Magistrate has rightly observed that the complainant was required to prove its case beyond doubt so long as collection of sample is concerned, the prosecution was required to comply mandatory rule-14 coupled with Section 16(b) of the Act and therefore the prosecution has also failed to prove its case for bringing home of the accused for the charges levelled against them. Further, it appears that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is neither perverse, nor arbitrary, nor illegal nor capricious nor any error of law. Therefore, on re-appreciation and revaluation of deposition, the prosecution witnesses when the mandatory provisions are not duly complied, the learned Magistrate has rightly arrived at acquittal of accused persons. On such grounds, in the opinion of this Court the learned Magistrate has rightly and meticulously arrived at benefit of doubt to all the accused for the charges levelled against accused persons.

R/CR.A/1500/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2022

8. Hence, in-fleri, prosecution failed to prove case upon the accused.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and order dated 14.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gondal in Criminal Case No. 920 of 1997 is just and proper and there is no need of interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and order dated 14.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gondal in Criminal Case No. 920 of 1997 is confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled.

10. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned.

(A. C. JOSHI,J) SALIM/53