STATE OF RAJ. vs GOVIND RAM
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
[2026:RJ-JD:52991]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 412/1998
CNR: RJHC010000691994 | URN: CRLA / 886U / 1998
State Of Raj. Through Shyam Lal Charaya, Food Inspector, Primary
Health Centre-Shivpur, Panchayat, Samiti-Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
Govind Ram S/o. Hari Ram Agarwal, R/o. 25-E Block Sriganganagar.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, Dy. GA
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable:
28/10/2026
1. The State of Rajasthan preferred an application seeking
leave to appeal, which came to be allowed.
Consequently, the present criminal appeal has been
taken up for consideration. Heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material available on
record, including the impugned judgment.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of
Rajasthan assailing the judgment dated 07.04.1994
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sriganganagar, whereby the accused-
respondent was acquitted of the charges under
Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 04:13:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(2 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52991] [CRLA-412/1998]
3. Brief facts of the case are that Food Inspector
Shyam Lal Charaya (PW-1), on 14.08.1982, intercepted
the accused-respondent, who was carrying two
containers of milk on a motorcycle. Upon inspection,
each container was found to contain approximately 40
kilograms of milk, aggregating to 80 kilograms. The
Food Inspector purchased 750 ml of milk from the
accused-respondent for a consideration of Rs.2.50 and
divided the same into three equal parts in three clean
and dry bottles. Twenty drops of formalin were added
to each bottle, whereafter the samples were duly
sealed in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
One sample was forwarded to the Public Analyst,
H.L.A., Sri Ganganagar, for examination, while the
remaining two samples were deposited with the Local
Health Authority.
4. Upon receipt of the Public Analyst's report indicating
adulteration, the requisite prosecution sanction was
obtained and a complaint was instituted against the
accused-respondent. The accused was duly informed of
the proceedings and, upon appearance, the case
proceeded as a complaint case. After recording the
preliminary statement of the Food Inspector, charges
under Sections 7 and 16 read with Section 18-A of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, were framed
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 04:13:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(3 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52991] [CRLA-412/1998]
against the accused-respondent. He denied the charges
and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined three
witnesses, namely, Shyam Lal Charaya (PW-1), Veer
Singh (PW-2) and Suresh Kumar (PW-3), and exhibited
fifteen documents. Thereafter, the accused-respondent
was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he
denied the allegations and claimed innocence. No
evidence was adduced in defence.
6. The gravamen of the prosecution case was that the
accused-respondent was carrying milk for sale and that
the sample drawn from the said milk was found to be
adulterated. On the contrary, the defence of the
accused was that he had neither sold milk to the Food
Inspector nor was he carrying the milk for the purpose
of sale. Rather, he was transporting the milk for use in
preparing sweets at his own confectionery shop.
7. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence, the learned trial court found several
infirmities in the prosecution case and extended the
benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent.
8. The first infirmity noticed by the learned trial court
pertained to the validity of the prosecution sanction
(Exhibit P-13). It was observed that the sanction had
been accorded on a cyclostyled form, wherein the blank
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 04:13:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(4 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52991] [CRLA-412/1998]
spaces had been filled in by some other person,
whereas the competent authority had merely appended
its signatures in a different ink. In such circumstances,
the learned trial court concluded that the Local Health
Authority had not applied its independent mind to the
material placed before it before according sanction for
prosecution.
9. This Court finds no infirmity in the aforesaid reasoning.
Grant of prosecution sanction is not an empty
formality; rather, it is a statutory safeguard intended to
ensure that the competent authority, upon due
consideration of the relevant material and application of
its independent mind, arrives at a conscious decision as
to whether the prosecution ought to be instituted. The
mechanical issuance of sanction, without due
application of mind, cannot be regarded as sufficient
compliance with the statutory requirement.
10. The second and equally significant infirmity
concerned non-compliance with the mandatory
requirement of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954. The said provision confers upon
the accused a valuable statutory right to have the
second sample analysed by the Central Food
Laboratory. However, the prosecution failed to
establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, that the
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 04:13:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(5 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52991] [CRLA-412/1998]
requisite intimation along with the Public Analyst's
report had been duly served upon the accused-
respondent, thereby enabling him to exercise the
aforesaid statutory right. Although the Food Inspector
referred to a communication (Exhibit P-14) and a postal
receipt (Exhibit P-15), he admitted in his cross-
examination that he was unaware whether the
communication had actually been received by the
accused or whether any acknowledgment of its receipt
had been received by the Local Health Authority.
11. It is a settled proposition of law that the right conferred
upon the accused under Section 13(2) of the Act is a
valuable statutory right, and failure to afford an
effective opportunity to exercise such right causes
serious prejudice to the defence and vitiates the
prosecution. The legal position in this regard stands
elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Girishbhai Dayabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat , (2009)
SCC.
12. Apart from the aforesaid infirmities, the learned
trial court also noticed that the prosecution had failed
to establish that the Food Inspector was duly
authorised to exercise his powers within the municipal
limits of Sriganganagar, as the relevant appointment or
posting order was not produced on record. Further,
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 04:13:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(6 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52991] [CRLA-412/1998]
although Form No. 6 (Exhibit P-6) recorded that the
milk had been properly stirred and mixed before
drawing the sample, the contemporaneous proceedings
recorded in the panchnama (Exhibit P-7) did not
contain any such recital. The Food Inspector himself
had also not specifically stated in his deposition that
the milk had been thoroughly stirred and mixed before
the sample was taken. Though PW-2 Veer Singh stated
that the milk had been stirred and mixed, the
discrepancy between the documentary record and the
oral evidence was considered material by the learned
trial court.
13. The learned trial court further noticed that the
independent witness, Suresh Kumar (PW-3), had
turned hostile and did not support the prosecution
version. PW-2 Veer Singh also admitted that no sale of
milk had taken place in his presence. These
circumstances were considered along with the defence
version that the milk was being transported for use in
the accused's confectionery business and not for sale.
14. In support of the aforesaid conclusions, the
learned trial court placed reliance upon the judicial
precedents reported in 1993 F.A.J. at pages 165, 176,
187 and 189, dealing with mandatory compliance with
Section 13(2) of the Act and the necessity of properly
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 04:13:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(7 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52991] [CRLA-412/1998]
stirring and mixing the milk before drawing a
representative sample.
15. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the
aforesaid circumstances, the learned trial court
concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish
its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly,
acquitted the accused-respondent by extending the
benefit of doubt.
16. Upon a careful examination of the impugned
judgment and the material available on record, this
Court finds that the learned trial court has undertaken
a proper appreciation of the oral as well as
documentary evidence. The findings recorded by it are
founded upon relevant considerations and do not suffer
from any patent illegality, perversity or misappreciation
of evidence warranting interference in the appellate
jurisdiction.
17. It is a settled principle that an order of acquittal
reinforces the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused, and unless the findings recorded by the
trial court are manifestly unreasonable, perverse or
contrary to the evidence on record, interference by the
appellate court is not warranted. In the present case,
no such circumstance is made out.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 04:13:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
(8 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:52991] [CRLA-412/1998]
18. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the
appeal preferred by the State. The impugned judgment
of acquittal dated 07.04.1994 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar,
calls for no interference.
19. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Crt_20 (1763)
D-B/5
Pooja Tak
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 04:13:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:16:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)