Holding

The High Court held that the trial court did not commit any error of law or fact and correctly acquitted the accused, thus refusing leave to appeal.

Summary

The original complainant, a government Food Inspector, filed a complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 alleging that milk sold by the respondents was adulterated. The Public Analyst and later the Central Food Laboratory confirmed the milk was sub‑standard, and the trial court initially issued a bailable warrant. The trial court, however, acquitted the accused, holding that there were material discrepancies in sample numbers, a delay of eleven months in filing the complaint, and non‑compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) and the PFA Rules. The complainant sought leave to appeal the acquittal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, arguing that the evidence was reliable and sufficient for conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, noted the procedural lapses and the lack of a credible link between the accused and the offence, and found no error of law or fact in the trial court's decision. Relying on established jurisprudence on appeals against acquittal, the Court refused leave to appeal and confirmed the acquittal. The order dismissed the application and reinstated the trial court's judgment.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory reports.
Whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, particularly Section 13(2) and Rule 14.
Whether the High Court should grant leave to appeal an order of acquittal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 378(4)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 13(2), s. 16, s. 2(ia)(m), s. 7(1)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Ruless. Rule 13(2), s. Rule 14, s. Rule 15, s. Rule 17

Subjects

Food adulterationPrevention of Food Adulteration ActAcquittalAppeal against acquittalEvidentiary standardsProcedural complianceCriminal Procedure CodeSection 13(2) of PFA Act

Judgment

R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 25364
of 2017

================================================================
KIRITKUMAR G PATEL
Versus
MUKESHKUMAR JOITRAM PATEL & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR UTPAL M PANCHAL(1075) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK

Date : 27/07/2026

ORDER

1. The applicant – original complainant has preferred this
application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) seeking leave to
prefer an appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2017
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.24 of 2001, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the original
accused (respondents herein) from the offences punishable under
Sections 2(ia)(m), 7(1) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the Food
Inspector duly appointed by the State Government. That, the
respondent No.1 is the original accused in the PFA Case No.24 of 2001
filed by the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 2(ia)

Page 1 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

(m), 7(1) r/w Section 16 of the Act. That, the applicant - original
complainant had on 04.05.2000 at around 08.00 a.m. visited the shop
"Patel Dairy" wherein, the accused runs an establishment and sells
milk & milk products and the owner of the said shop was Shri
Mukeshkumar Joitaram Patel. That, the applicant after giving proper
intimation in presence of Panch (Shri Haribhai Godhaddas Patel) took
2 packed polethene pouch of sample of Sumalya Pasteurised milk
weighing 500 gms each 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, the Public Analyst
report stated that the sample was found to be adulterated
(substandard) and, therefore, there is violation of Sections 2(ia)(m),
7(1) r/w Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
and after following such procedure prescribed under law to institute
complaint against the accused, the complaint PFA Case No.24 of 2001
came to be filed before the 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
dated 25.04.2017.

3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
complainant has examined the following witnesses:-

P.W. No. Name of Witnesses Exhibit
1 Deposition on oath of Complainant Food Inspector – 52

Page 2 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

Kiritkumar Gordhanbhai Patel

2 Deposition on oath of Pancha Witness – Haribhai 116
Gokaldas Patel

3 Deposition on oath of Witness – Rajesh Thakordas 118
Patel

3.1 In addition to this, the complainant has also produced the
following documentary evidence:-

Sr. No. Description Exhibit

Xerox true copy of the Gujarat Government
1 Gazette publishing the complainant's name as 44
Food Inspector.

Xerox true copy of the certificate awarded to the
2 complainant for undergoing Food Inspector 45
training.

Xerox true copy of the Gazette designating the
3 Health Officer of SMC as the Local Health 46
Authority.

Xerox true copy of the Gazette amendment
4 modifying the designation to Medical Officer of 47
Health instead of Health Officer of SMC.

Xerox true copy of the order issued by the LHL to
5 48
function as a Food Inspector.

Xerox true copy of the Government Notification
6 appointing the Public Analyst for the Surat 49
Municipal Corporation area.

Xerox true copy of the Gazette notifying power
7 granted under Section 20 of P.F.A. Act to Medical 50
Officer of Health for sanctioning prosecution.

8 Xerox true copy of the Gazette notifying Dy. 51

Page 3 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

Commissioner (Health & Hospital) as L.H.A. u/s 2
and empowering u/s 20 of PFA Act to grant
sanction for prosecution.

Original Form No. 6, Intimation issued to the
9 53
accused prior to taking the sample.

10 Copy of Rule 15 label used for the said sample. 54

Copy of Form 7 (Rule 17) Memorandum used for
11 66
the said sample.

Original money receipt for payment made
12 67
towards the food sample purchased.

Panchnama drawn at the scene of sampling
13 68
procedure.

Xerox true copy of page of Postal Dispatch
14 Register signed by P.A. confirming receipt of one 69
sealed part of the sample sent.

Original report bearing L.H.A. signature
15 confirming receipt of two sealed parts of the 70
sample packet.

Xerox true copy of dispatch register page signed
16 by P.A. acknowledging receipt of sealed cover 71
containing Memorandum copy.

Xerox true copy of dispatch register page signed
by P.A. acknowledging receipt of specimen seal
17 72
and signature sample in sealed cover sent to the
P.A.

Office dispatch copy of letter sent to Accused No.
18 2 via Regd. Post A.D. informing about the sample 73
taken.

Original Regd. Post A.D. acknowledgment card
19 74
confirming receipt of the said letter.

Page 4 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

Report submitted by the Public Analyst, SMC
20 75
regarding the complaint sample.

Office dispatch copy of Regd. Post A.D. letter sent
21 to Accused No. 2 seeking constitutional details of 76
their firm.

Original Regd. Post A.D. acknowledgment card
22 77
confirming receipt of the said letter.

Office dispatch copy of Regd. Post A.D. letter
23 seeking constitution details of Accused No. 2's 78
firm due to non-response of the above letter.

Original Regd. Post A.D. acknowledgment card
24 79
confirming receipt of the said letter.

Report submitted by complainant to Dy.
25 Commissioner (Health & Hospital), SMC seeking 80
sanction to file complaint against accused.

Sanction granted by Dy. Commissioner (Health &
26 81
Hospital), SMC to prosecute the accused.

Office dispatch copy of Regd. Post A.D. letter of
27 82
L.H.A. and P.A. report sent to Accused No. 1.

Original Regd. Post A.D. acknowledgment card
28 83
confirming receipt of the said letter and report.

Office dispatch copy of Regd. Post A.D. letter of
29 84
L.H.A. and P.A. report sent to Accused No. 2.

The sealed envelope containing the said letter
30 85
returned unserved.

4. The evidence Produced on Behalf of the trial Court :

Page 5 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

Oral Evidence

Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit

Deposition on oath of Witness – Amitabh Krishna
1. 262
Adhikari Nitanand Adhikari.

Documentary Evidence

Sr. No. Description Exhibit

True copy of the confidential letter written by this
court regarding sending the re-analysis report of
1 263
the sample received from C.F.L. Mysuru to this
court.

264 to
2 Re-analysis report of the Central Food Laboratory.
266

Memorandum sent for getting the re-analysis of
3 267
the second part of the sample done through C.F.L.

4 Certificate of Verification under Section 13(2). 268

269 to
5 Empty pouch of the milk sample.
270

Specimen seal applied on the container and
6 271
cover.

Memorandum sent for getting the re-analysis of
7 272
the second part of the sample done through C.F.L.

4.1 Apart from that, the documents prepared on the basis of application
Exh.-5 of accused No. 1 and the report received based on it are produced as
follows:

Sr. No. Description Exhibit

1 Sealed packet containing two parts of the sample 07
sent by LHA to this office, along with the letter

Page 6 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

Sr. No. Description Exhibit

regarding the same and the rojkam done by this
office recorded behind that letter.

Memorandum sent for getting the re-analysis of
2 08
the second part of the sample done through C.F.L.

3 Certificate of Verification under Section 13(2). 09

4 Specimen seal applied on the container and cover. 10

Confidential letter written by this court regarding
5 sending the re-analysis report of the sample 15
received from C.F.L. Mysuru to this court.

6 Re-analysis report of the Central Food Laboratory. 16

The cover in which the re-analysis report of the
7 Central Food Laboratory was received by this 17
office.

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 applicant – original complainant has
preferred this application seeking leave to prefer an appeal.

8. Heard Mr.Kaushal Pandya, learned counsel for the applicant –
original complainant, Mr.Utpal Panchal, learned counsel for the
respondents – accused and Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public

Page 7 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

Prosecutor for the respondent – State of Gujarat at length.

9. Mr.Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the applicant –
original complainant has submitted the same facts which are narrated
in the memo of application 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. Learned counsel Mr.Pandya, 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.
While referring to the evidence of the witnesses and the material
collected against the accused, learned counsel Mr.Pandya has
submitted that the prosecution has established the case against the
accused by examining the witnesses, who have supported the case of
the prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and
disbelieved the evidence of these witnesses. He has submitted that
the witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution,
however, the trial Court has not appreciated the same and passed the
judgment and order of acquittal which is illegal and unjust. He has
submitted that it is settled legal position that the evidence of a single
witness is sufficient for conviction if the same is reliable and
trustworthy and in the present case, though the evidence of all the
witnesses are reliable and trustworthy, without any cogent reason,
the trial Court has disbelieved and discarded the evidence of the
witnesses.

Page 8 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

9.1 According to learned counsel Mr.Pandya, the trial Court ought to
have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed necessary
sentence. He has prayed to allow the present application seeking
leave to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal.

10. Per contra, Mr.Panchal, learned counsel for the respondents –
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 application.

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.

Page 9 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

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.
It is necessary to first examine the facts of the case. On 04.05.2000,
at around 8:00 a.m., the complainant visited Shop No. 3, situated in
Dindayal Society, Palanpur Patiya, Palanpur Road, Surat, which was
owned by Respondent No. 1. There, he found 50 packets of 500 ml
each of milk pouches manufactured by respondent No.2 under the
brand name ‘Sumalya Pasteurized Milk’. For the purpose of analysis,
he informed respondent No.1 that he intended to purchase samples of
the pasteurized milk for analysis and accordingly, purchased two milk
packets. In the presence of the panch witness, Haribhai Godaddas
Patel, the complainant collected two pouches of pasteurized milk.
After thoroughly mixing the contents, he poured the milk into a clean
plastic jug. Thereafter, after adding formalin as a preservative, he
divided the sample into three separate clean, dry, and moisture-free
glass bottles of identical weight and capacity. The pasteurized milk
sample was poured equally into these bottles. After completing all the
prescribed formalities relating to sampling, sealing, packing, and
labeling, one of the sealed sample bottles was forwarded to the Public
Analyst, Surat, through a peon for analysis. Upon receipt of the report
of the Public Analyst, the milk sample was found to be adulterated.
The milk fat content was found to be 1.5% as against the prescribed
minimum limit of 6.0% under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
(P.F.A.) Rules. Although the solid-not-fat (SNF) content was found to
be 9.7%, which was above the prescribed minimum limit of 9.0%, the
deficiency in the milk fat content rendered the sample adulterated.
Accordingly, the applicant–complainant filed the complaint for the
offences punishable under Sections 2(ia)(m) and 7(i) read with Section
16 of the Act. After receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, the

Page 10 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

complainant prepared the necessary papers and submitted the
requisite documents to the sanctioning authority for obtaining
sanction to launch prosecution against the respondents. Upon receipt
of the sanction, the complaint was filed before the trial Court. The trial
Court took cognizance of the offence and issued a bailable warrant
against the respondents. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 appeared
before the trial Court and filed an application below Exh.-8 seeking
analysis of the counterpart sample by the Central Food Laboratory.
The trial Court allowed the said application, and one sample was
accordingly forwarded to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, for
analysis. The report of the Central Food Laboratory was thereafter
received and produced before the trial Court at Exh. 16, wherein it
was opined that the sample did not conform to the prescribed
standards and was found to be adulterated and, therefore, the case
proceeded further.

13. The prosecution principally relied upon the evidence of the
Public Analyst and examined the relevant witnesses to prove the
charge against the respondents. On perusal of the impugned
judgment and order, it is evident that the trial Court, after considering
the oral as well as the documentary evidence and recording the
submissions advanced by both sides, framed the issues referred to in
paragraph 9. The trial Court thereafter recorded its reasons from
paragraph 10 onwards, observing that the report received by the
Local Health Authority and produced at Exh.-75 formed the basis for
intimating respondent Nos.2 and 3 and calling upon them to furnish
the registration details of the companies. It appears from the record
that the respondent No.1 was a retailer who had purchased 50 milk
pouches manufactured by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the purpose of
sale under a valid bill, which was duly produced on record. However,

Page 11 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

the deposition of PW-1 (the complainant) reveals that he was unable
to state whether he had complied with the provisions of Rule 14 read
with Rule 13(2) of the P.F.A. Rules. Further, the deposition of PW-3,
Rajesh Thakoredas Patel, indicates that the sample sent to the Central
Food Laboratory (CFL) and the report received from the CFL referred
to different serial numbers. Taking these aspects into consideration,
the trial Court, while dealing with the submissions advanced on behalf
of the respondents in paragraph 13 of the judgment, observed that
there was a discrepancy regarding the sample number mentioned in
the memorandum and the corresponding CFL report. On the basis of
Exhibits 9 and 16, the trial Court ultimately held that there was a
material discrepancy in the sample numbers reflected in the record. It
also appears from the record that respondent No. 1 had filed an
application below Exhibit 8 seeking analysis of the sample by the
Central Food Laboratory (CFL). Pursuant to the order allowing the said
application, the sample was forwarded to the CFL. However, the
sample number mentioned in the memorandum did not correspond
with the sample number reflected in the CFL report, thereby revealing
a discrepancy.

14. The trial Court observed that the sample was drawn on
04.05.2000, whereas the complaint was lodged on 09.04.2001, after a
delay of nearly 11 months. The Court further noted that no
explanation for this delay was forthcoming either from the deposition
of the complainant or from the prosecution evidence. The trial Court
further observed that the prosecution failed to establish that it had
complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) and Rule 14
of the Rules. In view of these deficiencies, and after considering all
the relevant aspects, the trial Court rightly passed the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal. I do not find any illegality, infirmity,

Page 12 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

or perversity in the impugned judgment, as this Court has consistently
held in a catena of judgments that compliance with the mandatory
provisions of the Rules is required to be strictly observed in their true
letter and spirit. 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. 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. 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.

15. 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 765

STATE OF GUJARAT V/S HUSENALI NAJARALI HUDA AND 2 ORS
reported in 2010 LawSuit(Guj) 250

MANGALDAS AMBUBHAI PATEL V/S MAHESH CELLARAM

Page 13 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

MOHNANI & 1 reported in 2016 LawSuit(Guj) 1473

STATE OF GUJARAT V/S RASULKHAN A PATHAN reported in 2015
LawSuit(Guj) 1168

STATE OF GUJARAT V/S MOHMADBHAI NOORMOHMAD
SUNASARA reported in 2007 LawSuit(Guj) 2768

MANGALDAS AMBUBHAI PATEL V/S DASHRATHBHAI
SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL & 1 reported in 2016 LawSuit(Guj) 1480

MANGALDAS AMBUBHAI PATEL V/S DHARAMVEER HORILAL
YADAV & 1 reported in 2014 LawSuit(Guj) 1850

MAHENDRA AMBALAL PATEL V/S BARKATALI PYARALI HUDDA
AND ORS reported in 2012 LawSuit(Guj) 613

16. 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.

17. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an Appellate Court
has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate

Page 14 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

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.

18. 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
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.

19. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex

Page 15 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

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.

20. 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.

Page 16 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

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.

(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.”

21. 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.

Page 17 of 18
R/CR.MA/25364/2017 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2026

22. 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
to be dismissed.

23. In view of the above, the present application seeking to leave
to prefer an appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be
dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed and leave is refused. Rule is
discharged. 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

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 29/07/2026 17:20:49

Page 18 of 18