STATE OF GUJARAT vs CHIMANBHAI BHANUBHAI CHAUDHARI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/918/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 918 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHIMANBHAI BHANUBHAI CHAUDHARI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. ASHOK A PUROHIT(6267) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 17/06/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Surat at Vyara (hereinafter referred to as
“the appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal no. 1/2006 whereby, the
appellate Court acquitted the respondents – accused.
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.03.1995 at
about 10.30 hours, complainant-Food Inspector, Mr. B.N. Chaudhari,
while discharging his duties as a Food Inspector has visited place of
respondent running under the name and style of M/S. Bharat Sweets
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 15:04:30 IST 2026
R/CR.A/918/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
and Farsan Mart, at Shop no. 6, J.B. and S.A. Shopping Centre, Vyara,
Dist. Surat. That, the complainant-Food Inspector, after giving
intimation in Form no. 6 purchased muddamal sample of "Kajukatri"
(silver foiled) in the presence of panch witnesses paying cost of
Rs.96/- and sent the same to Public Analyst, Bhuj for the purpose of
analysis. That, the sample which was purchased by complainant came
be analysed and examined by office of the Public Analyst, Bhuj and
after analysing the same, the Public Analyst arrived at the conclusion
that material which was purchased by complainant-Food Inspector
was not with the provisions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act and Rules. That, on receipt of report from Public Analyst, Bhuj, the
complainant-Food Inspector obtained permission to prosecute against
respondents and after receiving sanction from competent authority
i.e. Local Health Authority, complaint was filed before the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, First class, Vyara with a proposal to try the
respondents-accused for the offences punishable under sec.2(1-A) (A),
2(1-A) (C), and 2(1-A) (M) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
and numbered as Criminal Case No. 1709/1995. That, the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vyara had taken the cognizance of the
offence, issued process against accused persons and intimated to
respondents with a copy of report of public analyst and the
respondents appeared before the trial court, and applied for re-
analysis of muddamal "Kajukatri" (Silver foiled) by Central Food
Laboratory, Gaziabad. That, the Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad,
by its letter vide Exh. 16, submitted report of Central Food Laboratory,
which was also found substandard, a charge sheet was filed against
respondents.
2.1 The charges against the accused came to be framed by the
trial Court for the offences. On being explained it to them, the
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 15:04:30 IST 2026
R/CR.A/918/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
accused have denied having committed any offence. The accused
pleaded not guilty to the charges and pleaded for trial.
3. It appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined the witnesses and produced documentary
evidences.
4. After closure of the evidence, the statements of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been
recorded wherein he denied of having committed any offence and has
stated that he is innocent.
5. The learned Magistrate, Vyara, after hearing parties from both
sides and considering the evidence on record, convicted respondents
by judgment and order dated 24.11.2006 for the alleged offences
under sec. 2(1-A) (A), 2(1-A)(C), and 2(1-A) (M) of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of three years and fine of Rs.5000/- i/d. further simple
imprisonment for a period of six months. Thereafter, against the order
of conviction, the accused has preferred criminal appeal before the
appellate Court whereby the appellate Court, after considering the
submissions and hearing the respective parties and considering the
oral as well as documentary evidence, has acquitted the accused from
all the charges levelled against them.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal, the appellant has preferred this Appeal.
7. Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 15:04:30 IST 2026
R/CR.A/918/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
the appellant and Mr. Ashok Purohit, learned counsel for the
respondents at length.
8. Ms. Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted that the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the appellate Court is
contrary to law and evidence on record and against the principles of
justice, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set
aside. She has submitted that the appellate Court has failed to
appreciate deposition of complainant Food Inspector at Exh. 39,
wherein he has clearly deposed in his deposition regarding cleaning of
vessels and when said fact gets corroboration from panchnama at
Exh. 45 then in that case it can not be said that there is breach of
provision of sec. 14 of the Act. She has submitted that the appellate
Court has not appreciated the fact that looking to report of Public
Analyst as well as Central Food Laboratory, it is clear that presence of
aluminium foil was found in stead of silver foil. Learned APP has
further submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary
to the evidence on record, based on erroneous appreciation of
material evidence, and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. She
has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned appellate
Court are perverse and unsustainable in law, thereby calling for
interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
She has further submitted that the learned appellate Court has
materially erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt and the findings recorded by the
appellate Court were therefore perverse, illegal, and contrary to the
evidence on record. She has submitted that the learned appellate
Court has erred both on facts and in law in recording the order of
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 15:04:30 IST 2026
R/CR.A/918/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
acquittal, having failed to properly appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence available on record. She urges before the
Court that present appeal may be allowed and the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal may be quashed and set aside.
9. On the other hand, Mr.Purohit, learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that the appellate Court has rightly
passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and there is no
any illegality or any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order
and, therefore, no interference is required to be called for. He has
supported the reasonings stated by the appellate Court and submitted
that the respondents have been falsely roped in the alleged offence.
He has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges
levelled against the respondents before the appellate Court by
leading cogent and material evidence and therefore, the appeal being
meritless deserves to be dismissed and the judgment and order of
acquittal deserves to be confirmed.
10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. It appears that the
findings recorded by the trial Court was not justified and it was not in
consonance with the facts of the present case though there was a
legal principle as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court which was
brought to the notice of the trial court, the trial Court has recorded
the conviction against the respondents which was rightly reversed by
the Appellate Court by passing the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the
decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Rasiklal
Shah and Anr. reported in 1994 Cr.L.R. (Guj) 94, the case of Iqbal
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 15:04:30 IST 2026
R/CR.A/918/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
Musabhai Hunani Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. in Criminal
Revision Application No. 173 of 1984 and the case of Vimal B
Chauhan Vs. Kalubhai Ambalal Jesani & 1 reported in 2011
Lawsuit(Guj) 1943 wherein this Court has decided similarly situated
issue of food adulteration. It appears that the report of the Public
Analyst confirms that the aluminium foil was found on kaju katri
collected from the shop of the respondents then, the important
question arises whether this aluminium foil found on the article i.e.
kaju katri is hazardous to the health of people; whether the article
found to be coated with the aluminium foil and in absence of any
evidence on record to the effect that aluminium foil is injurious to
health and is unfit for human consumption, the mere use of such foil
for coating kaju katri would not make that article of food adulterated.
Such principle has been consistently laid down and reiterated by this
Court in the aforesaid decisions. So far as non-compliance of Rule 14
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is concerned, the
evidence of the Food Inspector-B.N.Chaudhari i.e. PW 1 at exhibit 39
clearly reveals that, after collecting the sample, he kept it in a glass
bottle and further admitted that the bottles were not cleaned as
required under the Rules. It appears that in his cross examination,
PW1 has also admitted that there was no any statutory part and he
was not having any documentary evidence to the effect that the
aluminium foil is injurious to human health or that its use is prohibited
under the Act or the Rules. It appears that PW 1 has also admitted
that he did not register any complaint for misbranding but he filed the
complaint for adulteration and in view of the clear admission on the
part of PW 1-Food Inspector, the Trial Court has completely misread
the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the
Rules while passing the conviction order against the present
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 15:04:30 IST 2026
R/CR.A/918/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
respondents which was rightly reversed by the appellate Court.
10.1 Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
reads as under:
14. Manner of sending samples for analysis.
- Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in
clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which
shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage,
evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of
moisture and shall be carefully sealed.
In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Punabhai Ramabhai Machhi
reported in 2005 FAJ 376, this Court has observed non compliance
with Rule 14 appeal against the acquittal. No positive evidence on
record to show that the sample bottles were cleaned. In the said
decision, this Court has referred and relied upon the earlier decision
of this Court and has made relevant discussion/observation in para-11
onwards. In the present case, a positive evidence has been recorded
by the trial court that the officer has in clear terms stated that he has
not cleaned the bottle before taking samples. In view of that, I am in
complete agreement with the impugned judgment and order passed
by the appellate Court, more particularly, the reasoning given by the
appellate Court in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment and order
with regard to the compliance of the provisions of Rule 14 framed
under the Act. It appears that the appellate Court has specifically
observed that the learned trial Court failed to consider this submission
and the mandatory provision of Rule 14 and therefore, in light of the
decision of this Court, the appellate Court has rightly passed the
impugned order of acquittal. Even with regard to the food article -
Kaju katri which was found coated with the aluminium foil, the
appellate court has considered the decisions of this Court as well as of
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 15:04:30 IST 2026
R/CR.A/918/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
other High Courts which is referred and relied upon in paragraphs 19
and 20 of the impugned order and after considering the same, the
appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned order of acquittal.
10.2 On perusal of the report of Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad
at Exh. 16, it appears that the Laboratory has analysed the sample
and result of such anaylsis reads as under:
“PHYSICAL APPEARANCE: The sample of Kaju Katri was brown
in colour, free from fungal growth, insect infestation and rodent
contamination.
ANALYTICAL DATA:
1. Baudouin's test of extracted fat: Positive
2. B.R. Reading of Extracted fat at 40°C: 56.3
3. Test for mineral oil: Negative
4. Test fer starch: Positive
5. Test for sucrose: Positive
6. Test for silver foil: Negative
7. Test for aluminium foil : Positive
8. Added colouring matter: Absent
OPINION: The sample shows presence of aluminium foil. The
sample is thus adulterated.”
11. 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
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
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 15:04:30 IST 2026
R/CR.A/918/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
12. 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 he is charged.
13. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
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 in 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
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 15:04:30 IST 2026
R/CR.A/918/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
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, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by
the trial Court.
14. 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. 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
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 15:04:30 IST 2026
R/CR.A/918/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
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.”
15. 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 has committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 15:04:30 IST 2026
R/CR.A/918/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026
16. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the appellate 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 appellate Court is sustainable and the present appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
17. In view of the above, t h e present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the appellate
Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
ANUSRI
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Fri Jul 03 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 03 15:04:30 IST 2026