Full Judgment Text
$~R-36.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A 192/2005
% Judgment dated 10.12.2013
DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Manoj Ohri, Adv.
versus
SURAJ ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J ( ORAL )
1. Present appeal has been filed by the petitioner/Delhi Administration
against the judgment dated 4.8.2004 passed by learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, whereby the respondent has been acquitted.
2. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the trial court is as under:
“ The present complaint has been filed by Mr.Gopal Singh, Local
(Health) Authority, Delhi Administration, Delhi against Mr.Suraj,
the accused person, for prosecution of the offence under Section 16
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as the PFA Act.)
The complainant has submitted that on 03.03.1993 at about 15-45
hours, Mr.V.P.S. Chaudhary, Food Inspector purchased a sample
of “Paneer”, a food article for analysis from Mr.Suraj s/o
Mr.Shyam Lal at janta Paneer Bhandar, 1/11, Chhoti Subze Mandi,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-58 where the said food article was found
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 1 of 9
stored for sale. Mr.Suraj, the accused, was found conducting the
business of the said shop at the time of sampling. The sample of
paneer was taken from an open tray. The sample of Paneer was
taken by cutting it into small pieces with the help of a clean and dry
knife in a clean and dry tray and mixing properly. The Food
Inspector divided the sample then and there into three equal parts
and put them in separate clean and dry bottles and 20 drops of
formalin were added to each bottle. Each bottle containing the
sample was separately packed, fastened, marked and sealed
according to the PFA Act and Rules. Vendor’s Notice was given to
the accused and the price of the sample was given to him. The
panchnama was prepared at the spot. All the documents were
prepared by Mr.V.P.S. Chaudhary, Food Inspector, were signed by
the accused and the other witness, Mr.A.K. Dhir, Food Inspector.
Before starting the sample proceedings efforts were made to join
the public witnesses but none came forward. The sample was taken
under his supervision. One counterpart of the sample was sent to
the Public Analyst in intact condition and the two counterparts
were deposited with the L.H.A. in the intact condition. The Public
Analyst analysed the sample and found the same to be adulterated
and non-conforming to the standards prescribed under the PFA Act
and Rules. The opinion of the Public Analyst is as under:
“The sample does not conform to the standard because milk
fat of dry matter is less than the prescribed minimum limit of
50%. ”
3. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court, was that the
respondent has violated the provisions of section 2(ia)(a)(m) and
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 2 of 9
committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1) read with Section 7
of the PFA Act. After receiving summons, the respondent exercised his
right under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act and sent the second counterpart
of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, for analysis. The
Director, Central Food Laboratory, vide report dated 24.6.1993 reported
that the sample is adulterated as the milk fat on the dry matter basis is
47.5%. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section
2(ia)(a)(m) of the PFA Act punishable under Section 16(1) read with
Section 7 of the PFA Act was framed against the respondent on 9.9.1993
to which he pleaded not guilty.
4. The complainant examined three witnesses. Statement of the respondent
was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Besides recording of the
statement, the respondent examined himself as DW-1.
5. As per the grounds raised in the appeal, the impugned order dated
4.8.2004 is bad in law, it is not based upon evidence, the same is based on
surmises and conjectures and, thus, the same is liable to be set aside. The
second ground urged in the appeal is that it was not necessary to take the
sample from all the bricks of paneer in the tray by cutting the entire lot
and, thus, the learned trial court has incorrectly held that the sample was
not of the entire lot and has erroneously acquitted the respondent. Another
ground, which has been raised in this appeal, is that the trial court has
wrongly come to the conclusion that there was no positive evidence to
show that the knife, with which the paneer was cut, and the tray, in which
it was mixed up, were not clean.
6. As far as the first ground raised by the appellant is concerned that it is not
necessary to take the samples from all the bricks of paneer the learned
trial court has relied upon the decision rendered in State of Haryana v.
Jagdish , reported at 1993 (I) All India Prevention of Food Adulteration
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 3 of 9
Journal 76 wherein it has been held that where there is failure on the part
of the Food Inspector to mix the entire contents before taking the sample,
the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The trial court has also
relied upon the judgment rendered in Chaman Lal v. MCD and State ,
reported at 1979 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 86, wherein it
has been held that it is of utmost importance to ensure that three samples
are of uniform quality; otherwise the whole value of the check and
counter-check is completely lost. It was, therefore, held that in the event
of sample not being of uniform and representative character, it would be
unsafe to convict the accused.
7. On perusal of testimony of PW-1, V.P.S. Chaudhary, who was a part of
the PFA staff, that raided the shop of the respondent, it is clear that out of
the eight to ten bricks of panner that were lying in the tray only one brick
was chosen as a sample at random and it was cut into small pieces. PW-2,
who was also a part of the raiding staff on 3.3.1993 has also deposed on
the same lines as PW-1 and stated that one brick of paneer was selected at
random and cut into small pieces. PW-3, who was also part of the raiding
staff, deposed on similar lines as PW-1 and PW-2 by stating that 750 gms.
of paneer in the shape of a single brick was purchased by PW-1 for the
purpose of sampling.
8. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 would thus show that only one
brick was taken from the tray of the respondent and the sample was taken
solely from that one brick, which was cut into small pieces. The testimony
does not suggest that the sample was taken from the entire lot and, thus, it
cannot be treated as a representative sample.
9. The trial court has rightly reached a conclusion that the entire lot of bricks
of paneer lying in the tray was not cut into pieces and the sample was not
taken from the entire lot, which is in contradiction to the provisions of the
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 4 of 9
PFA Act, as per which the Food Inspector was required to homogenize
the entire lot of bricks of paneer and then take a sample from the same. In
view thereof, the first ground, which has been urged by the appellant i.e.
there was no necessity to take the sample from all the bricks of paneer is
without any merit.
10. As far as the second ground with respect to the hygiene of tray and knife
is concerned, in my view, it has been correctly observed by the trial court
that there is no evidence on record to show that the vessel used for taking
the sample was either dry or clean. Furthermore, there is no positive
evidence that the knife used to cut paneer sample in the tray was clean and
dry.
11. In order to bring home the importance of hygiene of the vessels and
instruments used by complainant while collecting the sample, the trial
court has relied upon a plethora of judgments. In the case of Corporation
of Calcutta v. M/s Gopal Chandra Dey and Anri , reported at 1980 All
India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 320, it has been held that
where a sample of mustard oil had been taken and found to be adulterated,
it can be concluded that the sample was not taken in an appropriate
manner as there was no scintilla of evidence on record to show, in what
manner the mug in question was cleaned. The chheni which was supplied
by the seller was an old instrument which appeared not to have been clean
at all. Since the same came in contact with the sealed oil, sample of
which was taken, it cannot be held beyond doubt that the same was taken
properly and in a hygienic manner. The piercing instrument was an old
one and the mug was not clean due to which benefit was given to the
accused.
12. In the case of Sardarmal Jain v. Nagar Nigam and Another , reported at
1996 (2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 203, the sample of Burfi
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 5 of 9
taken from the respondent‟s shop was found adulterated with Rhodamine-
B which is a material used in printing process. While taking the sample,
the Food Inspector placed the whole lot of “BURFI” on a newspaper
which had been given by the servant of the appellant. The possibility
cannot be ruled out that the Rhodamine-B used in printing of that
newspaper may after coming in contact with the “Burfi” have got
transmitted on the “Burfi”, the newspaper after becoming soggy, normally
transmits its imprint on the other objects coming in contact with it. Hence,
the benefit of doubt was given to the accused.
13. Further in the case of R.N. Tyagi v. State of Haryana , reported at 1999
(1) Prevention of Food Adulteraton Cases 311, two crates of carbonated
bottles taken from the accused were found to be adulterated with
saccharine. The tub in which the contents of the sample carbonated
bottles were poured, had earlier been used for emptying saccharine in it.
It was concluded that the tub was not cleaned properly as the possibility
of tub containing some saccharine deposits cannot be ruled out. The lack
of evidence of the tub being cleaned before the contents of the bottles
were emptied in the tub creates a doubt. If such a doubt is created, the
benefit of it has to go to the accused.
14. In the case of Shashi Kant v. State of UP , reported at 1983 (1) Prevention
of Food Adulteration Cases 90, it was held that where the sample was
taken out in a “Bhogna” and then weighed and no evidence was examined
to show, whose “Bhogna” it was and whether it was clean and dry, the
accused could not be convicted.
15. In the case of Satyanarain Gupta v. Keshav Deo , reported at 1984
Prevention of Food Adulteration cases 370, it was held that where the
milk was poured into a jug and therefrom in the sample bottles, there was
no evidence to prove that the jug was clean and dry and also that the three
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 6 of 9
sample bottles were clean before the contents were poured into them. The
accused could not be convicted.
16. In the case of Shew Chander Mathur and Anr. V. State of Assam &
Anr. , reported at 1991 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 9, it was
held that the prosecution had not proved that the polythene containers had
been cleaned before the SUJI LADDOO sample had been weighed and
kept therein. In such a scenario the accused is entitled to the benefit of
doubt and is to be acquitted.
17. In the case of State of Punjab v. Paramjit Singh , Vol. XIX-1992, The
Criminal Law Times 234, it was observed that the witness was required to
categorically state that he had used a clean stick for the purpose of
measuring and stirring the milk.
18. In State of Haryna v. Krishan Kumar , Vol. XIX-1992, The Criminal Law
Times 559, the accused had been acquitted on the ground that there is no
evidence that the sample was weighed with clean weighing scales and the
possibility of remnants of starch of other items of sweets getting stuck to
the sample during the process of weighing it cannot be ruled out.
19. In the case of Varghese v. Food Inspector , reported at 1989 (II)
Prevention of food Adulteration Cases 236, it was observed by the Court
that it must be the endeavour of the Food Inspector to use clean and dry
implements in sampling the articles of food. If unhygienic methods are
adopted, it will affect the result of analysis.
20. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellant has been
unable to show that the aforesaid judgments are not applicable to the facts
of the present case.
21. Applying the above law to the facts of the present case and in the light of
the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 it is clearly proved that neither
was the sample of Paneer representative in nature as required under the
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 7 of 9
PFA Act, as it was not taken after homogenization of the entire lot, nor is
there any evidence on record to prove good hygiene condition of the
instruments used at the time of sampling of Paneer. Therefore, the
possibility of the implements used in sampling being unhygienic and
hence contaminating the sample cannot be ruled out.
22. In Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State represented by the Public Prosecutor and
Anr. , 2009 (10) SCC 206 , while referring with approval the earlier
judgment in Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450 ,
the Supreme Court reiterated the principles which must be kept in mind
by the High Court while entertaining an Appeal against acquittal. The
principles are:-
“1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
The accused possessed this presumption when he was before
the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the
presumption that he is innocent.
2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate
court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can
review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts
and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and
consideration to the decision of the trial court.
3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial
court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of
the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate
the credibility of the witnesses.
4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb
the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and
compelling reasons" for doing so.
5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that
leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High
Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 8 of 9
6. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite
conclusion that the appellant court should be very slow in setting
aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views
are possible. The trial court judgment cannot be set aside because
the appellate court‟s view is more probable. The appellate court
would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment
unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire
evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either
„perverse‟ or wholly unsustainable in law.”
23. In my view the trial court has rightly applied the law laid down to the
facts of the present case. The grounds, which have been urged before the
Court, are without any merit. Accordingly, no grounds are made out to
interfere in the judgment passed by the trial court. The appeal is without
any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
DECEMBER 10, 2013
msr
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 9 of 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A 192/2005
% Judgment dated 10.12.2013
DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Manoj Ohri, Adv.
versus
SURAJ ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J ( ORAL )
1. Present appeal has been filed by the petitioner/Delhi Administration
against the judgment dated 4.8.2004 passed by learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, whereby the respondent has been acquitted.
2. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the trial court is as under:
“ The present complaint has been filed by Mr.Gopal Singh, Local
(Health) Authority, Delhi Administration, Delhi against Mr.Suraj,
the accused person, for prosecution of the offence under Section 16
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as the PFA Act.)
The complainant has submitted that on 03.03.1993 at about 15-45
hours, Mr.V.P.S. Chaudhary, Food Inspector purchased a sample
of “Paneer”, a food article for analysis from Mr.Suraj s/o
Mr.Shyam Lal at janta Paneer Bhandar, 1/11, Chhoti Subze Mandi,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-58 where the said food article was found
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 1 of 9
stored for sale. Mr.Suraj, the accused, was found conducting the
business of the said shop at the time of sampling. The sample of
paneer was taken from an open tray. The sample of Paneer was
taken by cutting it into small pieces with the help of a clean and dry
knife in a clean and dry tray and mixing properly. The Food
Inspector divided the sample then and there into three equal parts
and put them in separate clean and dry bottles and 20 drops of
formalin were added to each bottle. Each bottle containing the
sample was separately packed, fastened, marked and sealed
according to the PFA Act and Rules. Vendor’s Notice was given to
the accused and the price of the sample was given to him. The
panchnama was prepared at the spot. All the documents were
prepared by Mr.V.P.S. Chaudhary, Food Inspector, were signed by
the accused and the other witness, Mr.A.K. Dhir, Food Inspector.
Before starting the sample proceedings efforts were made to join
the public witnesses but none came forward. The sample was taken
under his supervision. One counterpart of the sample was sent to
the Public Analyst in intact condition and the two counterparts
were deposited with the L.H.A. in the intact condition. The Public
Analyst analysed the sample and found the same to be adulterated
and non-conforming to the standards prescribed under the PFA Act
and Rules. The opinion of the Public Analyst is as under:
“The sample does not conform to the standard because milk
fat of dry matter is less than the prescribed minimum limit of
50%. ”
3. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court, was that the
respondent has violated the provisions of section 2(ia)(a)(m) and
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 2 of 9
committed an offence punishable under Section 16(1) read with Section 7
of the PFA Act. After receiving summons, the respondent exercised his
right under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act and sent the second counterpart
of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, for analysis. The
Director, Central Food Laboratory, vide report dated 24.6.1993 reported
that the sample is adulterated as the milk fat on the dry matter basis is
47.5%. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section
2(ia)(a)(m) of the PFA Act punishable under Section 16(1) read with
Section 7 of the PFA Act was framed against the respondent on 9.9.1993
to which he pleaded not guilty.
4. The complainant examined three witnesses. Statement of the respondent
was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Besides recording of the
statement, the respondent examined himself as DW-1.
5. As per the grounds raised in the appeal, the impugned order dated
4.8.2004 is bad in law, it is not based upon evidence, the same is based on
surmises and conjectures and, thus, the same is liable to be set aside. The
second ground urged in the appeal is that it was not necessary to take the
sample from all the bricks of paneer in the tray by cutting the entire lot
and, thus, the learned trial court has incorrectly held that the sample was
not of the entire lot and has erroneously acquitted the respondent. Another
ground, which has been raised in this appeal, is that the trial court has
wrongly come to the conclusion that there was no positive evidence to
show that the knife, with which the paneer was cut, and the tray, in which
it was mixed up, were not clean.
6. As far as the first ground raised by the appellant is concerned that it is not
necessary to take the samples from all the bricks of paneer the learned
trial court has relied upon the decision rendered in State of Haryana v.
Jagdish , reported at 1993 (I) All India Prevention of Food Adulteration
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 3 of 9
Journal 76 wherein it has been held that where there is failure on the part
of the Food Inspector to mix the entire contents before taking the sample,
the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The trial court has also
relied upon the judgment rendered in Chaman Lal v. MCD and State ,
reported at 1979 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 86, wherein it
has been held that it is of utmost importance to ensure that three samples
are of uniform quality; otherwise the whole value of the check and
counter-check is completely lost. It was, therefore, held that in the event
of sample not being of uniform and representative character, it would be
unsafe to convict the accused.
7. On perusal of testimony of PW-1, V.P.S. Chaudhary, who was a part of
the PFA staff, that raided the shop of the respondent, it is clear that out of
the eight to ten bricks of panner that were lying in the tray only one brick
was chosen as a sample at random and it was cut into small pieces. PW-2,
who was also a part of the raiding staff on 3.3.1993 has also deposed on
the same lines as PW-1 and stated that one brick of paneer was selected at
random and cut into small pieces. PW-3, who was also part of the raiding
staff, deposed on similar lines as PW-1 and PW-2 by stating that 750 gms.
of paneer in the shape of a single brick was purchased by PW-1 for the
purpose of sampling.
8. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 would thus show that only one
brick was taken from the tray of the respondent and the sample was taken
solely from that one brick, which was cut into small pieces. The testimony
does not suggest that the sample was taken from the entire lot and, thus, it
cannot be treated as a representative sample.
9. The trial court has rightly reached a conclusion that the entire lot of bricks
of paneer lying in the tray was not cut into pieces and the sample was not
taken from the entire lot, which is in contradiction to the provisions of the
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 4 of 9
PFA Act, as per which the Food Inspector was required to homogenize
the entire lot of bricks of paneer and then take a sample from the same. In
view thereof, the first ground, which has been urged by the appellant i.e.
there was no necessity to take the sample from all the bricks of paneer is
without any merit.
10. As far as the second ground with respect to the hygiene of tray and knife
is concerned, in my view, it has been correctly observed by the trial court
that there is no evidence on record to show that the vessel used for taking
the sample was either dry or clean. Furthermore, there is no positive
evidence that the knife used to cut paneer sample in the tray was clean and
dry.
11. In order to bring home the importance of hygiene of the vessels and
instruments used by complainant while collecting the sample, the trial
court has relied upon a plethora of judgments. In the case of Corporation
of Calcutta v. M/s Gopal Chandra Dey and Anri , reported at 1980 All
India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 320, it has been held that
where a sample of mustard oil had been taken and found to be adulterated,
it can be concluded that the sample was not taken in an appropriate
manner as there was no scintilla of evidence on record to show, in what
manner the mug in question was cleaned. The chheni which was supplied
by the seller was an old instrument which appeared not to have been clean
at all. Since the same came in contact with the sealed oil, sample of
which was taken, it cannot be held beyond doubt that the same was taken
properly and in a hygienic manner. The piercing instrument was an old
one and the mug was not clean due to which benefit was given to the
accused.
12. In the case of Sardarmal Jain v. Nagar Nigam and Another , reported at
1996 (2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 203, the sample of Burfi
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 5 of 9
taken from the respondent‟s shop was found adulterated with Rhodamine-
B which is a material used in printing process. While taking the sample,
the Food Inspector placed the whole lot of “BURFI” on a newspaper
which had been given by the servant of the appellant. The possibility
cannot be ruled out that the Rhodamine-B used in printing of that
newspaper may after coming in contact with the “Burfi” have got
transmitted on the “Burfi”, the newspaper after becoming soggy, normally
transmits its imprint on the other objects coming in contact with it. Hence,
the benefit of doubt was given to the accused.
13. Further in the case of R.N. Tyagi v. State of Haryana , reported at 1999
(1) Prevention of Food Adulteraton Cases 311, two crates of carbonated
bottles taken from the accused were found to be adulterated with
saccharine. The tub in which the contents of the sample carbonated
bottles were poured, had earlier been used for emptying saccharine in it.
It was concluded that the tub was not cleaned properly as the possibility
of tub containing some saccharine deposits cannot be ruled out. The lack
of evidence of the tub being cleaned before the contents of the bottles
were emptied in the tub creates a doubt. If such a doubt is created, the
benefit of it has to go to the accused.
14. In the case of Shashi Kant v. State of UP , reported at 1983 (1) Prevention
of Food Adulteration Cases 90, it was held that where the sample was
taken out in a “Bhogna” and then weighed and no evidence was examined
to show, whose “Bhogna” it was and whether it was clean and dry, the
accused could not be convicted.
15. In the case of Satyanarain Gupta v. Keshav Deo , reported at 1984
Prevention of Food Adulteration cases 370, it was held that where the
milk was poured into a jug and therefrom in the sample bottles, there was
no evidence to prove that the jug was clean and dry and also that the three
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 6 of 9
sample bottles were clean before the contents were poured into them. The
accused could not be convicted.
16. In the case of Shew Chander Mathur and Anr. V. State of Assam &
Anr. , reported at 1991 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 9, it was
held that the prosecution had not proved that the polythene containers had
been cleaned before the SUJI LADDOO sample had been weighed and
kept therein. In such a scenario the accused is entitled to the benefit of
doubt and is to be acquitted.
17. In the case of State of Punjab v. Paramjit Singh , Vol. XIX-1992, The
Criminal Law Times 234, it was observed that the witness was required to
categorically state that he had used a clean stick for the purpose of
measuring and stirring the milk.
18. In State of Haryna v. Krishan Kumar , Vol. XIX-1992, The Criminal Law
Times 559, the accused had been acquitted on the ground that there is no
evidence that the sample was weighed with clean weighing scales and the
possibility of remnants of starch of other items of sweets getting stuck to
the sample during the process of weighing it cannot be ruled out.
19. In the case of Varghese v. Food Inspector , reported at 1989 (II)
Prevention of food Adulteration Cases 236, it was observed by the Court
that it must be the endeavour of the Food Inspector to use clean and dry
implements in sampling the articles of food. If unhygienic methods are
adopted, it will affect the result of analysis.
20. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellant has been
unable to show that the aforesaid judgments are not applicable to the facts
of the present case.
21. Applying the above law to the facts of the present case and in the light of
the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 it is clearly proved that neither
was the sample of Paneer representative in nature as required under the
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 7 of 9
PFA Act, as it was not taken after homogenization of the entire lot, nor is
there any evidence on record to prove good hygiene condition of the
instruments used at the time of sampling of Paneer. Therefore, the
possibility of the implements used in sampling being unhygienic and
hence contaminating the sample cannot be ruled out.
22. In Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State represented by the Public Prosecutor and
Anr. , 2009 (10) SCC 206 , while referring with approval the earlier
judgment in Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450 ,
the Supreme Court reiterated the principles which must be kept in mind
by the High Court while entertaining an Appeal against acquittal. The
principles are:-
“1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
The accused possessed this presumption when he was before
the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the
presumption that he is innocent.
2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate
court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can
review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts
and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and
consideration to the decision of the trial court.
3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial
court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of
the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate
the credibility of the witnesses.
4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb
the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and
compelling reasons" for doing so.
5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that
leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High
Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 8 of 9
6. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite
conclusion that the appellant court should be very slow in setting
aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views
are possible. The trial court judgment cannot be set aside because
the appellate court‟s view is more probable. The appellate court
would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment
unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire
evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either
„perverse‟ or wholly unsustainable in law.”
23. In my view the trial court has rightly applied the law laid down to the
facts of the present case. The grounds, which have been urged before the
Court, are without any merit. Accordingly, no grounds are made out to
interfere in the judgment passed by the trial court. The appeal is without
any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
DECEMBER 10, 2013
msr
CRL.A.No.192/2005 Page 9 of 9