(1.) THE present appeal, under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.7.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sayla, Dist. Surendranagar in Criminal Case No. 23/1993, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents accused from the charges levelled against them.
(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case is that the respondent No. 1 is the company and respondents No.2 to 8 are the Directors of the said respondent No.1 Company. It is alleged that in the said company is engaged in doing the business of chemical and discharging the effluent water without purifying the same. It is alleged that on 24.6.1992 Mr JD Kalyani, Assistant Environment Engineer of the office of the Board at Rajkot, has visited the factory of respondent No.1 for inspection, after issuing the notice. THEy have taken the sample water from the said company. It is alleged that after sealing the sample the same was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. It is alleged that the Public Analyst submitted the Report and as per the said Report it was found that the accused have committed the breach of Section 24 and 25 of the Water Act and, therefore, they are responsible for the offences under Sections 43, 44 and 47 of the Water Act. THEreafter, after obtaining sanction complaint has been filed against the respondents accused. THEreafter, the trial was conducted against the respondents accused. THE trial Court examined the witnesses and also considered the documentary evidence led before it and after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence has acquitted the respondents accused from the charges levelled against them.
(3.) IT is a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents- accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. From the perusal of record it appears that the prosecution has not followed Rule 27, which is mandatory and, therefore, there is no question to entertain this Appeal. Hence, this appeal requires to be dismissed.