Gujarat High Court
Maheshbhai Jayantibhai Rana , Food … vs Hariharprasad Chhandrikaprasad … on 6 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1967 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
MAHESHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI RANA , FOOD INSPECTOR
Versus
HARIHARPRASAD CHHANDRIKAPRASAD TRIPATHI OWNER OF JAI
HANUMAN NAMKEEN BHANDAR & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR UTPAL M PANCHAL(1075) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 06/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant – Original Complainant has preferred this appeal
under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) against the judgment
and order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, (Municipal) Court, Surat (hereinafter be referred to as “the
trial Court”) in P.F.A. Case No.5 of 2007, whereby the trial Court has
acquitted the original accused (respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein) from
the offences punishable under Sections 2(ix)(k), 7(2) read with
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant is the
Food Inspector duly appointed by the State Government. The
respondent No.1 is the original accused in the PFA Case No.05 of 2007
filed by the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 2(ix)(k),
7(2) r/w Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
(in short “PFA Act“) and Rule 32(e) & 32(f) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short “PFA Rules”). That, the appellant –
original complainant on 18.07.2006 around 11.30 a.m. visited the
shop “Jai Hanuman Namkeen Bhandar” run by the respondent No.1 –
Hariharprasad Chandrikaprasad Tripathi who used to sell different
food products. That, the appellant after giving proper intimation in
presence of Panch (Anilbhai Kishanbhai Shah) took 3 pouch of sample
of ‘Suji Toast’ weighing 400 gms. from a total of 50 pouches, for
sending the same for analysis before Public Analyst and during the
said process, the procedure of the Act was duly complied. That, as per
the the Public Analyst report, the sample was misbranded and,
therefore, there was violation of S.2(ix)(k), S.7(2) r/w S.16 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and after following such
procedure prescribed under the law to institute complaint against the
accused, the complaint PFA Case No.05 of 2007 came to be filed
before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat.
2.2 The complainant made his submissions supported by concrete
evidences and proved his case in accordance with law. However, the
learned Magistrate committed a manifest error of law by acquitting
the respondent No.1 and others (original accused) and hence, the
accused came to be acquitted by the impugned judgment and order
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
dated 19.04.2017.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
Sr. No. Particulars Exh.
Deposition on oath of Complainant Food
(1) 35
Inspector - Maheshbhai Jayantibhai Rana
Deposition on oath of Pancha Witness - Anil
(2) 101
Kishanbhai Shah
4. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the
following documentary evidence:-
Sr. No. Description Exh.
Xerox true copy of the Gujarat Government
1 Gazette publishing the complainant's name as 36
Food Inspector.
Xerox true copy of the certificate awarded to the
2 complainant for undergoing Food Inspector 37
training.
Xerox true copy of the Government Notification
3 designating the Health Officer of SMC as the Local 38
Health Authority.
Xerox true copy of the Gazette amendment
4 modifying the designation to Medical Officer of 39
Health instead of Health Officer of SMC.
Xerox true copy of the order issued by the LHL to
5 40
function as a Food Inspector.
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
Xerox true copy of the Government Notification
6 appointing the Public Analyst for the Surat 41
Municipal Corporation area.
Xerox true copy of the Gazette notifying power
7 granted under Section 20 of PFA Act to Medical 42
Officer of Health for sanctioning prosecution.
Xerox true copy of the Gazette notifying Dy.
Commissioner (Health & Hospital) as LHA u/s 2
8 43
and empowering u/s 20 of PFA Act to grant
sanction for prosecution.
Xerox copy of the health department license
9 renewal fee receipt produced by Accused No. 2 at 44
the time of sampling.
Original Form No. 6, Intimation issued to the
10 45
accused prior to taking the sample.
11 Copy of Rule 15 label used for the said sample. 46
Copy of Form 7 (Rule 17) Memorandum used for
12 47
the said sample.
Original money receipt for payment made towards
13 48
the food sample purchased.
Original Panchnama drawn at the scene of
14 49
sampling procedure.
Xerox true copy of page of Postal Dispatch
Register signed by PA confirming receipt of one
15 50
sealed part of the sample sent to the Public
Analyst.
Original report bearing LHA signature confirming
16 51
receipt of two sealed parts of the sample packet.
17 Xerox true copy of dispatch register page signed 52
by PA acknowledging receipt of sealed cover
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
containing Memorandum copy.
Xerox true copy of dispatch register page signed
18 by PA acknowledging receipt of specimen seal and 53
signature sample in sealed cover.
Office dispatch copy of letter sent to Accused No.
19 3 via Regd. Post A.D. informing about the sample 54
taken.
Original Regd. Post A.D. acknowledgment card
20 55
confirming receipt of the said letter.
Original Analysis Report submitted by the Public
21 56
Analyst regarding the subject sample.
Office dispatch copy of Regd. Post A.D. letter sent
22 to Accused No. 3 seeking constitutional details of 57
their firm.
Original Regd. Post A.D. acknowledgment card
23 confirming receipt of the said information request 58
letter.
Office dispatch copy of letter written to Chief
Officer (Food Branch), Valsad Nagarpalika seeking
24 59
constitution details of Accused No. 3’s firm due to
non-response.
Xerox true copy of Accused No. 3’s license
25 provided by Chief Officer (Food Branch), Valsad 60
Nagarpalika in response to the inquiry.
Original report submitted by complainant to Dy.
26 Commissioner (Health & Hospital), SMC seeking 61
sanction to file complaint against accused.
Original written sanction order granted by Dy.
27 Commissioner (Health & Hospital), SMC to 62
prosecute the accused.
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
5. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that they are innocent.
6. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – original complainant has
preferred this appeal.
8. Heard Mr.Kaushal Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant –
original complainant, Mr.Utpal Panchal, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 – accused and Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.4 – State of Gujarat at length.
9. Mr.Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant –
complainant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the
memo of appeal and has also submitted that the prosecution has
examined witnesses and produced documentary evidence, despite
this fact, the trial Court has not considered the same in its true and
proper perspective in passing the judgment and order of acquittal.
Mr.Pandya, learned counsel, while referring to the entire oral as well
as documentary evidence, has assailed the impugned judgment and
order and submitted that the trial Court has not taken into
consideration the evidence connecting the accused to the alleged
offence in its proper perspective and even the prosecution has been
able to prove the charges levelled against the accused. He has
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
submitted that the trial Court committed a grave error in observing
that the complainant failed to produce the label of the sample to
establish the alleged violation of Rule 32(e) and (f) of the PFA Rules.
He has further submitted that the Public Analyst was not examined to
prove the said fact; however, it is no longer in dispute that the
prosecution cannot fail solely on the ground that the Public Analyst
was not examined. He has contended that the accused could also
have summoned and examined the Public Analyst in their defence,
but they failed to do so. He has further submitted that the trial Court
committed a manifest error in its judgment by observing that the
complainant was unable to explain the discrepancy in the description
of the manufacturer, wherein the Panchnama recorded the
manufacturer as “Suji Toast, Valsad”, whereas the other documents
mentioned the manufacturer as “Talha Food Products, Valsad”.
According to him, these observations relate merely to technical errors
committed by the complainant while recording the particulars and
ought to be ignored, especially when the veracity of the other
material documents has not been questioned. He has also submitted
that the trial Court observed that the complainant had asserted in the
complaint that the exact quantity was not mentioned on the sample,
as reflected in the intimation, label, and memorandum. However, the
Panchnama recorded the quantity of the sample as “400 grams net”.
He has contended that this finding is perverse and demonstrates non-
application of mind, particularly in view of the clear report of the
Public Analyst stating that the sample was misbranded because the
requisite particulars were not mentioned on the label of the sample
sent for analysis.
9.1 According to Mr.Pandya, learned counsel, the trial Court ought
to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed necessary
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
sentence. He has prayed to allow the present appeal and to quash
and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
10. Per contra, Mr.Panchal, learned counsel for the respondent –
accused has supported the impugned judgment and order and has
submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and
fact in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him.
He has submitted that the ingredients of the offence alleged against
the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused as the complainant
has failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. He has
also submitted that there is no iota of evidence to connect the
accused with the alleged crime in question. He has prayed to confirm
the impugned judgment and dismiss the present appeal.
11. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court, the questions arise for determination are as
under:-
(1) whether the trial Court is justified in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal.
(2) whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
led by the prosecution in recording the reasons.
(3) whether there is any illegality, irregularity or any perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
12. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone
through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
It is necessary to first examine the facts of the case. On 18.07.2006,
at about 11:30 a.m., during the course of his official duty, the
complainant, along with his assistant, Mr. K.G. Patel, visited the shop
of respondent No. 1, namely, Jai Hanuman Namkeen Bhandar,
situated at 4/2014, Nawabvadi Road, Surat. From the said shop, he
drew samples of the edible food item, namely Satyam Namkeen
containing Suji Toast, each packet weighing 400 grams, along with
the label containing the requisite declarations. The complainant
purchased the said food item for the purpose of sending the sample to
the Public Analyst. In the presence of the panch witnesses, namely,
Anilbhai Kishanbhai Shah and the his peon, the complainant drew the
sample, completed the procedure prescribed under the Act and the
Rules, and forwarded the sample to the office of the Public Analyst,
Surat, for analysis. The sample was sent for analysis on the allegation
of misbranding, as the packets did not contain the particulars
regarding the date of manufacture, batch number, and expiry date.
Upon analysis, the Public Analyst opined that the sample was in
violation of Rule 32(e) and Rule 32(f) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules. Consequently, on receipt of the Public Analyst’s
report, the complainant instituted the complaint for the offences
punishable under Section 2(ix)(k) and Section 7(ii), read with Section
16 of the Act. Upon receipt of the complaint, the trial Court took
cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the respondents.
Upon their appearance, the particulars of the offences were explained
to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Accordingly, the trial proceeded, and the trial Court framed the
charge at Exh. 66 against the respondents-accused for the aforesaid
offences. The prosecution examined Food Inspector at Exh.-35 and
Panch witness at Exh.101 and also produced documentary evidence
as referred in para-3. It is the case of the prosecution that on
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
18.07.2006, the sample was forwarded to the office of the Public
Analyst through peon Paresh Patel at about 4:30 p.m. The Public
Analyst received the sample and acknowledged its receipt by making
the necessary endorsement in the relevant register. On 19.08.2006,
the complainant received the report of the Public Analyst bearing
Correspondence No. PHL/U-83/2006, wherein the Public Analyst
opined that the sample was in clear violation of Rules 32(e) and 32(f)
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and was, therefore, a
misbranded food article. Consequently, upon receipt and perusal of
the said report, the prosecution was instituted against the present
respondents-accused.
13. The complainant thereafter prepared a proposal seeking
sanction from the competent sanctioning authority on 06.03.2007,
i.e., more than six months after the receipt of the report of the Public
Analyst, as the food item, namely Suji Toast, was a proprietary food
for which no prescribed standard had been fixed. Upon perusal of the
deposition of the complainant, it appears that he has admitted that,
so far as the food item namely Suji Toast is concerned, no prescribed
standard had been fixed, as it was a proprietary food article, which is
governed by Rule 37(A) of the Rules, which reads as under :
37(A).-Manufacture of proprietary food.
(1)Proprietary food means a food which has not been standardised
under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
(2)In addition to the provisions including labelling requirements
specified under these rules, the proprietary foods shall also conform
to the following requirements, namely:-
(a)the name of the food and category under which it falls in these
rules shall be mentioned on the label;
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
(b)the proprietary food product shall comply with all other regulatory
provisions specified in these rules and in Appendixes.
14. The complainant has further admitted that respondent Nos.1
and 2 were not the manufacturers of the food item, namely Suji Toast,
but were merely retailers who had purchased the same from its
manufacturer. He has also admitted that the packaging bore the
name of the manufacturer and that it is the responsibility of the
manufacturer to mention all the mandatory particulars on the label,
including the date of manufacture, expiry date, batch number, code
number, lot number, and other requisite declarations. So far as the
labeling of the food articles is concerned, it would also be appropriate
to refer to Rule 32(a) and (b) of the Rules (before substitution), which
are reproduced hereunder :
32. Package of food to carry a label.- Every package of food shall
carry a label and unless otherwise provided in these rules, there shall
be specified on every label-
(a) the name, trade name or description of food contained in the
package;
(b) the names of ingredients used in the product in descending order
of their composition by weight or volume as the case may be.
15. The complainant has also admitted that he received the report
of the Public Analyst on 19.08.2006; however, the complaint came to
be filed only on 08.03.2007, i.e., after a lapse of nearly six months. As
a result of this delay, the valuable right available to the respondents-
accused under Section 13(2) of the Act was lost. Consequently, there
was a violation of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. So far as
the breach of provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act are concerned, it
would be appropriate to refer to the decisions rendered in case of
State of Gujarat – Thro Ratilal Shivlal Patel, Food Inspector Vs.
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
Manishkumar Bhogilal Modi – M/s. Bhavani Provision Stores &
Anr., reported in 2025 LawSuit (Guj) 2565, in case of Akil
Abbasbhai Kapadiya Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2008 (2)
GLR 1713, in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Mahendarkumar K.
Mody, reported in 2007 LawSuit (Guj) 3042, in case of State of
Gujarat Vs. Jitendrakumar Takchandani Hotchandani and
others in Criminal Appeal No. 1860 of 2008, in case of
Rameshwar Dayal Vs. State of U.P., (1996) SCC (Cri) 75.
16. The trial Court observed that the name ‘Talha Bakers’ did not
find mention on the label collected by the complainant, which is
produced at Exh.-46. It further observed that certain particulars
appearing on the label were not reflected in the intimation prepared
by the complainant. Since the complainant failed to produce the
original label before the trial Court, the Court held that the alleged
violation of Rules 32(e) and 32(f) of the Rules could not be established
against the respondents-accused. The trial Court, therefore,
concluded that, in the absence of the relevant label being produced in
evidence, the prosecution had failed to prove that there was any
breach or violation of Rules 32(e) and 32(f) of the Rules. The trial
Court further observed that, although the complainant was aware at
the time of drawing the panchnama that the product had been
manufactured by ‘Talha Bakers’, he failed to mention this fact in the
panchnama. The trial Court also found that, despite relying upon
documentary evidence, the complainant failed to produce the
relevant documents before the Court to substantiate the prosecution
case against the respondents-accused. Consequently, it held that the
prosecution had failed to prove the charge levelled against the
respondents-accused beyond reasonable doubt. In such
circumstances, the trial Court concluded that the respondents-
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt and accordingly passed
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. In view of the above, I
am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error of
facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order and there
is no any illegality or any infirmity found in the judgment and order.
17. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the decisions of this Court
wherein in similar set of facts, this Court has dismissed the appeal
filed by the original complainant/State of Gujarat under the provision
of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The said decisions of this Court
read as under :-
STATE OF GUJARAT V/S PRAJAPATI AMRATLAL NATVARLAL
reported in 2008 1 GLR 765STATE OF GUJARAT V/S HUSENALI NAJARALI HUDA AND 2 ORS
reported in 2010 LawSuit(Guj) 250MANGALDAS AMBUBHAI PATEL V/S MAHESH CELLARAM
MOHNANI & 1 reported in 2016 LawSuit(Guj) 1473STATE OF GUJARAT V/S RASULKHAN A PATHAN reported in 2015
LawSuit(Guj) 1168STATE OF GUJARAT V/S MOHMADBHAI NOORMOHMAD
SUNASARA reported in 2007 LawSuit(Guj) 2768MANGALDAS AMBUBHAI PATEL V/S DASHRATHBHAI
SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL & 1 reported in 2016 LawSuit(Guj) 1480MANGALDAS AMBUBHAI PATEL V/S DHARAMVEER HORILAL
YADAV & 1 reported in 2014 LawSuit(Guj) 1850MAHENDRA AMBALAL PATEL V/S BARKATALI PYARALI HUDDA
AND ORS reported in 2012 LawSuit(Guj) 613Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
18. Further, it is also appropriate to refer the decisions of this Court
in case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation through Food
Inspector, D.G. Patel vs. Abid Hussain Abdul Majid Ansari, and
another passed in Criminal Appeal No.3173 of 2008, the decision
dated 25.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1132 of 2006 in case
of Nalinbhai H. Vyas, Food Inspector Versus Kishorbhai
Ghelaram Khushlani for Paris Confectionary Works and
Vishnuprasad C. Dodiya vs. Surendrakumar Mohanlal Thakkar
reported in 1994 (1) GLR 487, in case of Chimanlal Govindji
Thakker vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1997(1) GLR 458 and
V.B. Chauhan v. Umeshbhai Manubhai Modi in Criminal Appeal
No. 2255 of 2009, whereby identical issue has been dealt with by
this Court.
19. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However,
Appellate Court 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 their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
20. 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
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
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 arrived at would not be arrived
at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of 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. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which they are charged.
21. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in
[2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated
the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in
paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble
Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more
particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, I am in complete
agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
22. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-
“20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the
general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa
and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of
the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a
judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus:
“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 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 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.
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
(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.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential
for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly
indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for
discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able
to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It
was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it
would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a
contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is
absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject
their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of
the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this
light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing
with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant
Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered
judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the
benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”
23. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
24. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on re-
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1967/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
undefined
to be dismissed.
25. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is
hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 24 21:49:58 IST 2026
