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
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
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
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
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
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.
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-
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
