Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.10.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Vadodara, in Criminal Case No.2552 of 1996. The case arose from a complaint filed by Shri A.R. Pandya, Junior Inspector, Department of Legal Metrology & Consumer Affairs, Vadodara, alleging that on 20.06.1996, during a visit to the premises of accused No.1 (National Service Station, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum), it was noticed that the accused were giving less delivery of 7.6 ML in each delivery of 1 litre to customers, thereby committing an offence under Section 39(2) of the Standards of Weights and Measurements (Enforcement) Act, 1985. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the present appeal. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant failed to produce the calibrated measuring can used for testing, and the independent witnesses turned hostile. The court held that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's findings were not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Acquittal Appeal - Section 378 CrPC - Standard of Review - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The presumption of innocence is strengthened by acquittal. (Paras 1-7)
B) Standards of Weights and Measurements - Short Delivery - Section 39(2) of Standards of Weights and Measurements (Enf.) Act, 1985 - Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused delivered less quantity. In this case, the complainant did not produce the calibrated measuring can used for testing, and independent witnesses turned hostile. The trial court's acquittal was not perverse. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal dated 01.10.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Vadodara, in Criminal Case No.2552 of 1996.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal under Section 378 CrPC
- Standard of proof in criminal cases
- Presumption of innocence
- Standards of Weights and Measurements (Enf.) Act
- 1985 Section 39(2)
- Burden of proof on prosecution
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 400
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 870 of 2011
Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt (APP for appellant), Mr. Atul H. Mehta (for respondents 1,2)
National Service Station (Dealer of Bharat Petroleum) & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC for offence under Section 39(2) of Standards of Weights and Measurements (Enf.) Act, 1985.
Remedy Sought
The appellant (State of Gujarat) sought setting aside of the acquittal and conviction of the respondents.
Filing Reason
The complainant alleged that the respondents were giving less delivery of 7.6 ML per litre to customers.
Previous Decisions
The trial court acquitted the accused on 01.10.2009 in Criminal Case No.2552 of 1996.
Issues
Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite evidence of short delivery.
The respondents contended that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the complainant did not produce the calibrated measuring can, and independent witnesses turned hostile, so the acquittal was not perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.10.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Vadodara, in Criminal Case No.2552 of 1996, under Section 39(2) of the Standards of Weights and Measurements (Enf.) Act, 1985, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The case of the complainant before the learned trial Court was that the complainant - Shri A.R.Pandya, Junior Inspector, Department of Legal Metrology & Consumer Affairs, Vadodara, along with other staff members, visited the place of accused No.1 on 20.06.1996, and during their visit, it was noticed that respondents - accused were giving less delivery of 7.6 ML to customers in each and every delivery of 1 litre.
Procedural History
The complaint was filed in 1996, resulting in Criminal Case No.2552 of 1996 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, Vadodara. The trial court acquitted the accused on 01.10.2009. The State of Gujarat appealed under Section 378 CrPC, and the High Court dismissed the appeal on 11.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Standards of Weights and Measurements (Enforcement) Act, 1985: 39(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 378
