1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant – Original Complainant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat (hereinafter be referred to as “Trial Court”) in Municipal Case No. 5216 of 2007 dated 13.07.2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 380, 381, 382 and 392(1)(A) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter be referred to as “the BPMC Act”).

1.1. The respondent No.1 is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood 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. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is a Sanitary Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation and while he was on round for checking on 30.07.2007, he found that the accused, without having any licence from the concerned authority, was doing an activity of selling goat meat in the open market, and thereby, the accused was creating filth in public. On that basis, a private complaint was filed before the Trial Court, Surat on 06.12.2007.

2.2. After considering the complaint, the Trial Court issued process under section 204 of Cr.P.C. against accused and on appearance of the accused, he was provided the papers under section 207 of Cr.P.C and the plea of the accused was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the complaint and the entire evidence provided by the complainant was taken on record. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined two witnesses at Exh.9 and Exh.15 and has also produced four documentary evidences. 

2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.16, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. 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, has acquitted the accused. 

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat, the appellant - Surat Municipal Corporation through Sanitary Inspector has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned order is illegal and wrong in observing that there is contradiction between the report and the complaint and the evidence is doubtful. The impugned order is also bad in law as there is nothing wrong to have sanction in a printed form as it itself does not reflect that the sanction was mechanical or cyclostyle. The impugned order is otherwise also contrary to facts, evidence and law of the matter and the same is recorded in a very cursory and cavalier manner. The impugned order suffers from perversity of finding and also the same is null, void ab intio and non-est. That the impugned order reflects non-application of mind by the Trial Court. The impugned order is illogical, irrational and without rhyme and reason and also contrary to settled principles of law and suffers from infirmity and reflects manifest error of law and the impugned order is dehors the statutory provisions. 

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Pandya for the Appellant - original Complainant, learned advocate Mr. Shaishav Pandit for the respondent No.1 – original accused and learned APP Mr.Bhargav Pandya for thee respondent No.2- State. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 

5. Learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Pandya for the appellant has submitted that the Trial Court has disbelieved the sanction, which was given by the Competent Officer to lodge a prosecution. Though the sanction was produced before the Trial Court; however, without assigning cogent reasons, the Trial Court has completely overlooked that and observed that the sanction granted by the Competent Authority is without application of mind, as only two lines were mentioned in the prescribed form, and therefore, it cannot be said that it is legal and valid sanction given by the Competent Authority for institution of the complaint against the accused, which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. The learned Trial Court has held that there is inordinate delay in registering the complaint and there was no explanation given by the complainant for this inordinate delay, and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish this fact, but, the observations made by the Trial Court, in this regard, are erroneous and illegal. That, in fact, the Trial Court ought to have given proper weightage to the material evidence and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is against the facts of the case and the accused is required to be convicted for the alleged offence. 

6. Learned advocate Mr.Shaishav Pandit for the accused has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgement and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal. 

7. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the respondent - State has adopted the arguments of the learned advocate for the appellant – State and has submitted that appropriate order may be passed. 

8. With regard to the scope of interference by the Appellate Courts in acquittal appeals, in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"37. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another1 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: -

“29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of (2022) 3 SCC 471 acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [ Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , (2007) 4 SCC 415]

“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the 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 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 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.”

38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: -

“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;

8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and

8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 

39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-

"(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;

(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."

8.1. The Apex Court in yet another recent decision in case of Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No.334 of 2019, has held as under:- 

“6. It is true that while deciding an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has to re-appreciate the evidence. After reappreciating the evidence, the first question that needs to be answered by the Appellate Court is whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on evidence on record. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the High court shows that this question has not been adverted to Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after re-appreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal…………….” 

9. 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 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. 

10. In view of the above settled principles of law in acquittal appeal, considering the evidence from the record, it transpires that the complaint was filed against the accused under the BPMC Act and the prosecution has examined the Sanitary Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation to establish that the sanction was given to lodge the prosecution against accused by the Commissioner of Health Department and there was delay in filing the complaint but, the delay occurred in filing the complaint has not been explained. Further, no details are mentioned in the prescribed form and it transpires that the authority has not applied its mind while granting sanction for the alleged offence. The prosecution has also examined a witness at Exh.15 and and from his deposition also, no material is culled out to support the case of the prosecution. The raid was carried out in the open market and independent witnesses were available; however, the statements of independent witnesses were not recorded and the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. Even, the statements of the customers, who were present at that point of time, were not recorded. The sanction itself creates a doubt as the same is not in the prescribed form and no application of mind was found in the report and in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. 

11. The Trial Court has observed that in absence of any cogent and material evidence and in the absence of any panchnama prepared in the presence of independent witnesses and absence of muddamal seized and / or any evidence in the nature that the said meat is hazardous to the health of the public at large and creating any pollution, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused and under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality or any perversity while recording the findings. 

12. It is settled by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court can re-appreciate, review and examine the evidence recorded by the trial Court and after examining the record of the trial Court, if the Appellate Court finds that there is illegality or perversity in the judgment, the Appellate Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C and set aside the impugned order. 

13. Considering all these aspects and considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, and in a series of judgments in case of acquittal that, 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. The Apex Court has enunciated that while exercising the Appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal, though there are two views possible, the view taken by the Trial Court, may not be disturbed unless and until there is any perversity or any irregularity or any illegality found from the judgment and order of the trial Court. 

14. 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 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. 

15. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat in Municipal Case No. 5216 of 2007 dated 13.07.2012 is hereby confirmed. 

16. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.