Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kishore Lalwani on 7 August, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1 CRA-2530-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2530 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
KISHORE LALWANI
Appearance:
Shri Vinod Thakur, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri Vishal Patidar, learned counsel for the Respondent [R-1].
ORDER
The appellant State has filed the present Criminal Appeal under
Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.11.2022
passed in Criminal Case RCT No.523/2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate
First Class, District Ratlam whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the
respondent from the charges under Section 51 of Food Safety and Standards
Act, 2006 and Section 59(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 2006.
2. Heard on the question of admission.
3. Learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the learned trial court
has committed grave error of law and facts in acquitting the respondents
from the charges under 51 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and
Section 59(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 2006. Learned trial
Court has failed to consider that the prosecution has very well complied with
2 CRA-2530-2023
the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and thereafter on
completion of due formalities, charges were framed against the respondent.
Learned trial Court has passed the wrong order without considering the
report received from National Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. Therefore, the
order of acquittal suffers from legal infirmity causing injustice and
prejudice to the appellant, hence the same deserves to be set aside,
therefore, counsel prayed for grant of leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contentions and
submitted that the reasons recorded by trial Court are correct under the
provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The said sample was
taken on 15.10.2011, but it has been sent to inspection on 17/10/2011 (i.e.)
after two days delay. The delay has not been properly explained and holiday
does not matter in this regard. Similarly as per Sections 16 & 18 of Fertilizer
Adulteration Prevention Act, 1955 40 drops of Formalin solution has to be
dropped in entire milk wherein 40 drops has been dropped in every sample
bottles of milk. The signatures of Food Inspection Officer and Investigating
Officer was also attested after one week. As such the finding of learned trial
Court appears to be just and proper and the learned trial Court has passed the
order of acquittal after proper appreciation of evidence available on record.
Hence, the judgment of acquittal is not suffering from any infirmity and
impropriety.
5. I have heard the counsel for the State and perused the record.
6. Moreover in conspectus of the aforesaid discussions in entirety the
3 CRA-2530-2023
finding of the learned trial Court appears to the proper and immaculate. It is
well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably
wrong or grossly unreasonable and unrealistic, interference in the application
for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner is not called for.
7. On this aspect, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent
judgment of Ballu @ Balram@ Balmukund and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. [2024
Law Suit (SC) 279] decided on 02.04.2024 , is worth referring here :-
"20. The High Court could have interfered in the
criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion
that the findings of the trial Judge were either
perverse or impossible........
21. In any case, even if two views are possible and
the trial Judge found the other view to be more
probable, an interference would not have been
warranted by the High Court, unless the view taken
by the learned trial Judge was a perverse or
impossible view."
8. In view of the aforesaid, the application of leave to appeal against
acquittal is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
9 . Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for information.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
sumathi
