Gujarat High Court
Surat Municipal Corporation vs Rajubhai Kalabhai on 28 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 568 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Versus
RAJUBHAI KALABHAI & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
SHAISHAV S PANDIT(7363) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 28/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant - Original
Complainant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') challenging the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat (hereinafter
be referred to as "Trial Court") in Municipal Case No. 1080 of 2009
dated 23.12.2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 381(A)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
and 392(1)(A) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation
Act, 1949 (hereinafter be referred to as "the BPMC Act").
1.1. The respondent No.1 is hereinafter referred to as 'the
accused' as he stood 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. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is
a Sanitary Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation and while he
was on round for checking on 07.01.2009, he found that the
accused, without having any licence from the concerned authority,
was doing an activity of selling beef in the open market, and
thereby, the accused was creating filth in public. On that basis, a
private complaint was filed before the Trial Court, Surat on
16.04.2009.
2.2. After considering the complaint, the Trial Court issued
process under section 204 of Cr.P.C. against accused and on
appearance of the accused, he was provided the papers under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
section 207 of Cr.P.C and the plea of the accused was recorded,
wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the complaint and
the entire evidence provided by the complainant was taken on
record. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined
three witnesses at Exh.6, Exh.25 and Exh.23 and has also produced
five documentary evidences.
2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
APP at Exh.27, the further statement of the accused under Section
313 of the Code was recorded. 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, has acquitted the accused.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat, the appellant -
Surat Municipal Corporation through Sanitary Inspector has filed
the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned order is
illegal and wrong in observing that there is contradiction between
the report and the complaint and the evidence is doubtful. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
impugned order is also bad in law as there is nothing wrong to
have sanction in a printed form as it itself does not reflect that the
sanction was mechanical or cyclostyle. The impugned order is
otherwise also contrary to facts, evidence and law of the matter
and the same is recorded in a very cursory and cavalier manner.
The impugned order suffers from perversity of finding and also
the same is null, void ab intio and non-est. That the impugned
order reflects non-application of mind by the Trial Court. The
impugned order is illogical, irrational and without rhyme and
reason and also contrary to settled principles of law and suffers
from infirmity and reflects manifest error of law and the
impugned order is dehors the statutory provisions.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Pandya for the
Appellant - original Complainant, learned advocate Mr. Shaishav
Pandit for the respondent No.1 - original accused and learned
APP Mr.Bhargav Pandya for thee respondent No.2- State. Perused
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-
appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the
case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Pandya for the
appellant has submitted that the Trial Court has disbelieved the
sanction, which was given by the Competent Officer to lodge a
prosecution. Though the sanction was produced before the Trial
Court; however, without assigning cogent reasons, the Trial Court
has completely overlooked that and observed that the sanction
granted by the Competent Authority is without application of
mind, as only two lines were mentioned in the prescribed form,
and therefore, it cannot be said that it is legal and valid sanction
given by the Competent Authority for institution of the complaint
against the accused, which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. The
learned Trial Court has held that there is inordinate delay in
registering the complaint and there was no explanation given by
the complainant for this inordinate delay, and therefore, the
prosecution has failed to establish this fact, but, the observations
made by the Trial Court, in this regard, are erroneous and illegal.
That, in fact, the Trial Court ought to have given proper weightage
to the material evidence and the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal is against the facts of the case and the accused is required
to be convicted for the alleged offence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr.Shaishav Pandit for the accused
has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the
evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in
acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is
required in the impugned judgement and the order of acquittal
passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to
reject the appeal.
7. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the respondent -
State has adopted the arguments of the learned advocate for the
appellant - State and has submitted that appropriate order may be
passed.
8. With regard to the scope of interference by the
Appellate Courts in acquittal appeals, in case of Babu
Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others vs. State of Karnataka
reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
under:-
"37. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and
Another1 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after
considering various earlier judgments and held as below: -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
"29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled
out the following general principles regarding the powers
of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal
against an order of (2022) 3 SCC 471 acquittal in the
following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State
of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415]
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of the
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
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 emphasize 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
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: -
"8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the
presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against
acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and
documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a
possible view which could have been taken on the basis
of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court
cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible."
39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of
interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has
to be exercised within the four corners of the following
principles:-
"(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to
consider material evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the
view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible
from the evidence available on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of
acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above
factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal
rendered by the trial Court."
8.1. The Apex Court in yet another recent decision in case
of Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
in Criminal Appeal No.334 of 2019, has held as under:-
"6. It is true that while deciding an appeal against acquittal, the
Appellate Court has to re-appreciate the evidence. After re-
appreciating the evidence, the first question that needs to be
answered by the Appellate Court is whether the view taken by
the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken
based on evidence on record. Perusal of the impugned judgment
of the High court shows that this question has not been adverted
to Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only
if it is satisfied after re-appreciating the evidence that the only
possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been
established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court
cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that
another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of
acquittal must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate
Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with
the order of acquittal................"
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
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
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.
10. In view of the above settled principles of law in
acquittal appeal, considering the evidence from the record, it
transpires that the complaint was filed against the accused under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
the BPMC Act and the prosecution has examined the Sanitary
Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation to establish that the
sanction was given to lodge the prosecution against accused by the
Commissioner of Health Department and there was delay in filing
the complaint but, the delay occurred in filing the complaint has
not been explained. Further, no details are mentioned in the
prescribed form and it transpires that the authority has not applied
its mind while granting sanction for the alleged offence. The
prosecution has also examined a witness at Exh.25 and and from
his deposition also, no material is culled out to support the case of
the prosecution. The raid was carried out in the open market and
independent witnesses were available; however, the statements of
independent witnesses were not recorded and the prosecution has
not examined any independent witness. Even, the statements of
the customers, who were present at that point of time, were not
recorded. The sanction itself creates a doubt as the same is not in
the prescribed form and no application of mind was found in the
report and in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court
was justified in acquitting the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
11. The Trial Court has observed that in absence of any
cogent and material evidence and in the absence of any
panchnama prepared in the presence of independent witnesses
and absence of muddamal seized and / or any evidence in the
nature that the said meat is hazardous to the health of the public at
large and creating any pollution, the Trial Court has acquitted the
accused and under such circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality or any
perversity while recording the findings.
12. It is settled by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments
that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 378 of the
Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court can re-appreciate, review and
examine the evidence recorded by the trial Court and after
examining the record of the trial Court, if the Appellate Court
finds that there is illegality or perversity in the judgment, the
Appellate Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 378 of the
Cr.P.C and set aside the impugned order.
13. Considering all these aspects and considering the ratio
laid down by the Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, and in a
series of judgments in case of acquittal that, 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. The Apex Court has enunciated that while
exercising the Appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the
order of acquittal, though there are two views possible, the view
taken by the Trial Court, may not be disturbed unless and until
there is any perversity or any irregularity or any illegality found
from the judgment and order of the trial Court.
14. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/568/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement
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.
15. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court,
Surat in Municipal Case No. 1080 of 2009 dated 23.12.2011 is
hereby confirmed.
16. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI
