Gujarat High Court
The vs Shah on 10 January, 2011
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/232/1993 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 232 of 1993
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
SHAH
GIRISHKUMAR RAMANLAL & 4 - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
HL JANI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1
- 5.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 10/01/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the State, under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 21.11.1992, rendered in Special Case (E.S.T.P.) No.3 of 1990 by the learned Special Judge. The said case was registered against the present respondent for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act in the Court of learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra. The said Judgment of the trial Court has been challenged by the State on the ground that the Judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge is against the law and evidence on record.
According to the prosecution case, the accused No.1 was selling fertilizer at Kankanpur, Godhra and accused No.2 was the firm and accused No.3 is the person who is trading in the name of accused No.2, who was trading in the name of accused No.2 as wholesale dealer and accused No.4 was the company, which was producing the fertilizer at Mangrol, Dist. Junagadh and accused No.5 is the Quality Control Manager of accused No.4 Company. on 18.8.1988 the Agriculture Inspector visited the premises of the respondent - accused No.1 and took the sample of chemical fertilizer for the purpose of analysis. Thereafter, after completing the necessary procedure, the Agriculture Inspector sent the said sample to the concerned Laboratory for analysis. The Analyst submitted the report in which it has been found that "the sample of Chemical Fertilizer was sub-standard." Upon receipt of the report, the complaint was filed against the respondents - accused in the Court of learned Special Judge being Special Case (E.S.T.P.) No.3 of 1990.
At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents - accused.
Learned A.P.P. Shri Jani, appearing on behalf of the appellant - State has contended that the Judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and is not proper. He has also contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that the sample does not conform to the standards and the provisions laid down under the Act. He has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the report of Public Analyst.
I have gone through the papers produced in the Case. I have also gone through the evidence led before the trial Court as well as the Expert Opinion. I have also gone through the Judgment of the trial Court. It appears that Mr. M.D. Chauhan was examined at Exhibit 21 and one Mr. Mokliya was examined at Exhibit 39. It also appears that on 18.8.1988, the sample of Chemical Fertilizer was taken for analysis and thereafter, between the period from 8.9.1988 to 23.9.1888 that sample was lying with the Laboratory, Gandhinagar and this fact is also established from the cross-examination of Mr. Mokaliya and the said sample was kept for about 15 days and then it was taken for the purpose of analysis. That fact was also admitted by the eight employees, who were working under the supervision of said Mr. Mokaliya. From the papers it clearly appears that the learned Special Judge has rightly observed that the sample which was taken for analysis kept for about 15 days and the analysis was started only on 23.9.1988. Even the sample was taken out from the bag of sample on 18.8.1988 and the sample was kept as it is in wet weather of the Laboratory. In the facts of the case I am in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court.
It is settled legal position that in acquittal Appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents - accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed.
For the reasons recorded in the judgment delivered today, the Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Special Case No.3 of 1990 is hereby confirmed. Record and proceedings to be sent back to the concerned lower Court.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.) ynvyas Top