BHIKHALAL CHAKUBHAI KATHIRIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 390 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-

========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
========================================================
BHIKHALAL CHAKUBHAI KATHIRIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DR. HARDIK K RAVAL(6366) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

Date : 27/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – Food
Inspector, Junagadh Municipal Corporation, Junagadh under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and
the order dated 07.10.2014 in Criminal Case No.3996 of 1997
passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’),
whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent
Page 1 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
nos. 2 and 3 – original accused from the offences punishable
under Sections 7(1) and 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The
respondent nos. 2 and 3 are hereinafter referred to as ‘the
accused’ as the stood in the rank and file in the original case, for
the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
It is the case of the complainant, Mr. B. C. Kathiria,
2.1.
Food Inspector, Junagadh Nagarpalika that on 07.08.1996 at
about 10:00 a.m., he visited the premises of M/s. Snehadhin
Consumer Store, situated near S.T. Colony, Opposite Moti Baug,
Junagadh, for the purpose of inspection and found accused no.2
present at the shop and carrying on business therein. The
complainant, in the presence of panch witness Anilkumar
Nanjibhai Solanki, and helper D.N.Tank made inquiries and
ascertained that the said shop belonged to accused no.1. During
the inspection, the complainant found that accused no.2 was
keeping red chilli powder for sale amongst other articles and
that approximately 3 kilograms of red chilli powder had been
kept loose for sale. The complainant thereafter served a notice
in Form-VI upon the concerned person, as prescribed under
Rule-12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules”). He then purchased 600
grams of red chilli powder for the purpose of analysis against
payment of Rs.36/- and collected the sample in a clean, dry,
Page 2 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
white paper. The sample so collected was divided into three
equal parts, each of which was placed in clean, dry and
odourless glass bottle brought by the complainant. The bottles
were closed with metal caps in such a manner as to make them
airtight and were properly sealed. Labels bearing the signatures
of accused no.2, the complainant and the panch witnesses were
affixed to the bottles. Each bottle was thereafter wrapped in
thick brown paper, secured with gum and duly sealed. Upon
completion of the sampling procedure, the complainant returned
to his office with the samples. One part of the sample along with
the prescribed memorandum in Form-VII, duly sealed, was
dispatched by S.T. parcel to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Vadodara, for analysis. The remaining two parts of the sample,
together with the requisite memorandum in duplicate, were sent
to the Local Health Authority, Junagadh Circle, Junagadh, in
accordance with the prescribed procedure. Subsequently, the
report of the Public Analyst, FSL, Vadodara, was received,
wherein, it was reported that artificial oil-soluble synthetic
colours, namely, orange and pink, were detected in the sample
of red chilli powder. The Public Analyst concluded that the
sample did not conform to the prescribed standards and
provisions of the Rules. On the basis of the said report, the
complainant filed a complaint alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 2(1a)(a), 2(1)(a)(m), 2(9)(d), 7(1),
7(2), 7(5) and 16 of the Act read with the applicable rules before
the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh on
12.09.1997. The said complaint was registered as Criminal Case
Page 3 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
No.3996 of 1997.
2.2. The accused were duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was
verified whether the copies of all the police papers were
provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of
the Code. The plea of the accused were recorded at Exh.6 and 7
respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the
complaint and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record. The prosecution has examined 3 witnesses i.e.
Complainant – Bhikhalal Chakubhai Kathiriya at Exh.9, Panch
witness Anil Nanjibhai Solanki at Exh.117 and Helper Dhirubhai
Nathabhai Tank at Exh.124 and produced documentary
evidences from Exh.10 to 37 in support of the case.
2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of
the Code were recorded. After hearing the arguments of the
learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after
perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by
the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 7(1) and 16 of the Act.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the
appellant – original complainant has filed the present appeal
mainly on the ground that the learned Trial Court has not
appreciated the evidence on record properly. The prosecution
Page 4 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has
successfully proved the case against the accused but the
learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has
acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on
record and principles of justice and is based on inferences, not
warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions, not
permitted by law and hence, the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal must be quashed and set aside and the accused must
be found guilty for the said offence.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mahavir Jebaliya
appearing for learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli for the
appellant, learned APP Mr.Krutik Parikh for the respondent no.1
– State and learned advocate Dr. Hardik K. Raval for the
respondent nos. 2 and 3. Perused the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of
the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mahavir Jebaliya for the
appellant has taken this Court through the entire evidence
produced on record and has vehemently argued that the learned
Trial Court has committed a serious error in passing the order of
acquittal without properly appreciating the evidence on record.
Learned advocate further submits that the sample of red chilly
powder collected from the shop of respondent Nos.2 and 3 on
07.08.1996 was found to contain Orange Pink Oil Soluble
Page 5 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
Synthetic Colour, in violation of Section 2(1a)(a) of the Act. The
learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses, including the
complainant, and the mere fact that the panch witness has not
supported the prosecution case, despite not disputing his
signature on the panchnama, would not be sufficient to discard
the prosecution case. The sample was collected in clean and dry
bottles, the prescribed procedure was duly followed, and the
notice under Rule-12 was served upon the respondent no.3 in
the presence of the panch witnesses. It is, therefore, submitted
that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal deserves to
be set aside.
6. Learned APP Mr.Krutik Parikh for the respondent
no.1 – State and learned advocate Dr. Hardik K. Raval for the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 – original accused have jointly
submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the
evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in
acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court
is required in the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal
passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to
reject the appeal.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the
observations of the Apex Court with regard to acquittal appeal
in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Page 6 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415 , wherein the Apex Court has
observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 :
AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal
against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the
power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both
types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence.
However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will
not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of
the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable
and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely
because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also
bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt.
Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing
with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied)
…….. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court
while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;]
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreci-
ate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order
of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limita-
tion, 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 com-
pelling 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 ac-
quittal. 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 conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour
Page 7 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence
available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be pre-
sumed 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.
8. It is settled principle of law that in an appeal against
acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that
no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless
after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned
Trial Court, it appears that there is some manifest illegality or
perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the
Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on
the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the
order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption
of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order
of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution
i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which
is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial
Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate
Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The
Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of
Page 8 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial
reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the
Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the
evidence, that conviction is a must.
9. PW-1, Bhikhalal Chakubhai Kathiria, examined at
Exh.9, has deposed in detail regarding the procedure allegedly
followed by him on 07.08.1996, when he visited M/s. Snehadhin
Consumer Store, situated opposite Moti Baug, Junagadh, and
collected a sample of red chilli powder for the purpose of
analysis. He has narrated the circumstances in which the sample
was purchased and the subsequent procedure adopted by him
for dividing, packing, sealing and forwarding the sample to the
Public Analyst. The complainant has produced the relevant
documentary evidence in support of his case. The notification
appointing him as a Food Inspector has been produced at
Exh.10, the undertaking of accused no.2 at Exh.11, the notice in
Form-VI at Exh.12, the receipt evidencing payment of Rs.36/-
towards the purchase of the sample at Exh.13, the label at
Exh.14, panchnama at Exh.15, the receipt concerning the
dispatch of the sample at Exh.16, the forwarding letter
addressed to the Public Analyst, Food and Drugs Laboratory,
Vadodara at Exh.17, and the memorandum in Form-VII at Exh.18,
the receipt concerning the dispatch of the remaining two parts
of the sample to the Local Health Authority, Junagadh, at Exh.19,
while the acknowledgment relating to the dispatch of the sample
to the Public Analyst, Food and Drugs Laboratory, Vadodara, at
Page 9 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
Exh.20. The complainant has also produced communication from
the said laboratory acknowledging receipt of the sample at
Exh.21, letter addressed to M/s. Snehadhin Consumer Store
seeking information regarding ownership of the premises at
Exh.22, the receipt for payment of the charges for dispatch by
S.T. Parcel at Exh.23, letter addressed to the Divisional
Controller, S.T. Corporation, Junagadh, seeking information
regarding the ownership of M/s. Snehadhin Consumer Store at
Exh.24, and the reply received from the concerned S.T. authority
at Exh.25. A Letter of Local Health Authority calling for
information from the complainant is produced at Exh.26, report
of the Public Analyst at Exh.27, the particulars of the sample at
Exh.28, the letter seeking sanction to institute the prosecution at
Exh.29, the communication granting permission to file the
complaint at Exh.30, and the order of the Local Health Authority
at Exh.31 and the intimation regarding institution of the case
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh is at
Exh.32. The communications informing the accused about the
institution of the case are produced at Exhs. 33 and 34
respectively, while the relevant registered - post
acknowledgments and documents concerning service of such
intimation are at Exh.36 and 37 respectively.
During his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he
did not remember how many samples he had collected on the
day on which the sample in question was taken. He stated that
the shop was situated opposite Moti Baug and that several
Page 10 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
closed hotels and other shops were situated in the intervening
area. He further stated that he had gone to the shop along with
the panch witnesses. According to him, there was no question of
the panch witness having been brought from a distant place, as
the panch witnesses were available in the vicinity of the Moti
Baug campus, which included shops and residential quarters of
employees of the S.T. Corporation. PW-1 further deposed that he
had demanded 600 grams of red chilli powder from the accused
and that the accused had supplied the same. The notice at
Exh.12 was served upon the accused at the spot. He stated that
the panchnama was drawn after completion of the procedure
and that, on visual inspection, he had not noticed any
discrepancy in the sample. With regard to the bottles used for
collecting the sample, PW-1 admitted that they had been
obtained from the storekeeper in his office. He did not know who
had purchased the bottles or when they had been purchased. He
stated that he could ascertain from the office record when the
bottles had been supplied to him, but he did not wish to produce
that record. According to him, he obtained the bottles as and
when required, kept them with him and used them according to
his requirements. He further stated that the bottles were
supplied from the office along with their caps. Significantly, PW-1
admitted that the bottles in which the samples were placed had
not been washed in the presence of the accused and the panch
witnesses. Although he subsequently stated that the bottles had
been cleaned in their presence, he admitted that this fact was
Page 11 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
not recorded in the panchnama. He further admitted that he had
not used a spoon or any other implement to mix the red chilli
powder and that he had not mixed the sample before placing it
into the bottles. He also stated that the seals on the outer
coverings of the sample bottles were affixed at the office and
that neither the accused nor the panch witnesses had been
called to the office when the outer coverings were sealed.
9.1 PW-2, Anilbhai Nanjibhai Solanki, examined at
Exh.117, was examined as a panch witness. His testimony does
not support the prosecution case regarding his presence during
the sampling procedure. He stated that he had been asked to
affix his signature on certain packed articles and that he had
accordingly signed the documents. He identified his signatures
on the panchnama and the relevant documents; however, he
stated that he had not read the contents of the documents before
signing them.
During his cross-examination, PW-2 categorically
stated that he had not visited the shop of the accused on
07.08.1996 and that he had spent the entire day ironing clothes
and attending to his own business. He further stated that he did
not know why his signatures had been obtained on the
documents in question.
Thus, the testimony of PW-2 materially contradicts the
prosecution version regarding his presence at the time of
collection and division of the sample. His admission that he had
Page 12 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
not visited the shop on the relevant date raises a serious doubt
regarding the genuineness of the panchnama insofar as it
records his presence and participation in the sampling
procedure.
9.2. PW-3, Dhirubhai Nagjibhai Tank, examined at
Exh.124, was working as a helper and had allegedly
accompanied the Food Inspector on 07.08.1996 when the sample
was collected. He has supported the prosecution case to the
extent that the complainant demanded 600 grams of red chilli
powder from the accused, who supplied the same, and that the
sample was divided into three portions and placed in three glass
bottles. He stated that the bottles were clean and that they were
shown to the accused and the panch witness, who did not raise
any objection. He further deposed that the panchnama was
drawn and that the signatures of the persons concerned were
obtained thereon.
However, during his cross-examination, PW-3 stated
that the panch witness had been called from a neighbouring
shop and that the complainant had gone to call him, although the
witness did not know what conversation had taken place
between them. He further stated that the complainant had
demanded 600 grams of red chilli powder and that the accused
had supplied the same. According to him, the quantity was
divided into three portions of 200 grams each by the accused,
initially placed on a sheet of paper, and thereafter handed over
Page 13 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
to the complainant. PW-3 admitted that the bottles had not been
cleaned at the shop and that they had been supplied to the
complainant from the office. He did not know when the
complainant had obtained the bottles from the office. He further
stated that there was no specific procedure followed for cleaning
the bottles. He admitted that he had examined the record before
giving his deposition. He also stated that the sample had been
divided into three portions on a newspaper lying in the shop of
the accused.
The testimony of PW-3, therefore, requires
consideration alongside the admissions made by PW-1 and the
material contradictions emerging from the testimony of PW-2,
particularly with regard to the presence of the panch witness, the
cleaning of the bottles, and the manner in which the sample was
divided.
10. Upon a cumulative appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, it emerges that the prosecution has
failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the sample of
red chilli powder was collected and preserved in accordance
with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules
framed thereunder. Although PW-1, the Food Inspector, has
produced the documents relating to the purchase, packing,
sealing and dispatch of the sample, the mere production of such
documents does not, by itself, establish that the prescribed
procedure was duly followed at the stage of collection and
Page 14 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
preparation of the sample.
10.1 The most significant aspect of the evidence is the
admission of PW-1 that he did not use a spoon or any other
implement to mix the red chilli powder before placing it in the
sample bottles. He has specifically admitted that he did not mix
the sample before dividing it into separate portions. PW-3, the
departmental helper, has stated that the sample was divided into
three portions on a newspaper lying in the shop of the accused.
Neither witness has stated that the entire quantity of red chilli
powder from which the sample was drawn was properly stirred,
churned or otherwise mixed to ensure uniformity before the
sample was collected and divided. In the absence of such
evidence, it cannot be concluded that the sample sent for
analysis was representative of the entire quantity of red chilli
powder kept for sale by the accused.
10.2 The requirement of obtaining a representative
sample assumes particular significance in the case of powdered
food articles, such as red chilli powder, in which the distribution
of added colouring matter or other constituents may not
necessarily be uniform throughout the entire quantity. Unless the
food article is adequately mixed before the sample is drawn, the
possibility of variation in its composition cannot be ruled out.
Consequently, the analytical report, though relevant to establish
the composition of the particular material examined, cannot
automatically establish that the entire stock of red chilli powder
Page 15 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
possessed the same composition.
11 In Jagdishchandra Khandulal v. State of Gujarat ,
reported in 2015 LawSuit (Guj) 621 , the importance of ensuring
that a sample of chilli powder collected from an open bag is
representative of the entire quantity was emphasized. This Court
observed that the Food Inspector ought to ensure that the
contents are properly intermixed so that the sample possesses a
homogeneous character. The principle laid down in the said
decision is directly relevant to the present case, since PW-1 has
admitted that he did not mix the chilli powder before taking the
sample or placing it in the sample bottles.
12. There is a further material infirmity concerning the
cleanliness of the bottles used for collecting the sample. PW-1
has admitted that the bottles were obtained from the
storekeeper of his office and that he did not know who had
purchased them or when they had been purchased. Although he
subsequently stated that the bottles had been cleaned in the
presence of the accused and the panch witness, he admitted that
this fact had not been recorded in the panchnama. PW-3, on the
other hand, stated that the bottles had not been cleaned at the
shop and that they had been supplied from the office. He was
also unable to state when the bottles had been obtained or what
procedure had been followed for cleaning them. Thus, the
prosecution evidence does not satisfactorily establish when, how
and under whose supervision the bottles were cleaned and
Page 16 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
dried before the sample was placed in them. Rule-14 of the
Rules, required the sample to be taken in clean and dry bottles
or containers suitable for the purpose. Compliance with this
requirement cannot be presumed merely because the bottles
appeared clean to the naked eye or because the Food Inspector
had obtained them from his office. The prosecution was required
to establish through cogent evidence that the containers
satisfied the prescribed requirement before the sample was
placed in them.
12.1. In State of Gujarat v. Babu Lavji Jalia reported in
(1995) 2 GLH 722 , this Court in Para – 5 has observed as under :
“5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this
court has found that Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955 ('the Rules' for short) is
mandatory and it is the duty of the prosecution to
prove by leading positive evidence that bottles were
cleaned and dried before the sample was taken by
the food inspector. It is, therefore, the duty of the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
all ingredients or provisions that are to be proved as
per law and especially provisions which are
mandatory in nature have got to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The manner of sending the sample
for analysis is prescribed in Rule 14. It is very clear
from the said Rule that the sample of food for the
purpose of analysis should be taken in clean and dry
bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which
shall be closed and sufficiently tight to prevent
leakage, evaporation or in the case of dry substance,
entrance of moisture and should be carefully sealed.
The prosecution main witness food inspector himself
has not stated in his evidence about compliance of
the provisions of Rule 14. Rule 14 is held to be
mandatory and there is no dispute about this fact.
Non-compliance of the mandatory rule is fatal to the
prosecution. Since this appeal against acquittal order
Page 17 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
can be disposed of only on this count, it could not be
necessary to enter into the merits of other points on
which acquittal is founded upon.”
12.2 Similarly, in State of Gujarat v. Bhagchand
Sadhumal reported in 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 541 , this Court in
Para-32 has held as under:
“32. In the instant case, the fact remains that the
bottles were brought by the Peon and when the
bottles were brought in the office is not certain; When
the bottles were cleaned is also not certain. Therefore,
it is difficult to say that the samples were collected in
clean and dry bottles. In the result, the appeal fails
and is dismissed.”
12.3 The evidence of PW-2 further weakens the
prosecution case. Although his signatures appear on the relevant
documents, he has categorically denied having visited the shop
on the date of the incident. He has stated that he was engaged in
ironing clothes and attending to his business throughout that day
and that he did not know why his signatures had been obtained
on the documents. His testimony, therefore, casts serious doubt
upon the prosecution's assertion that the sampling procedure
was carried out in his presence and that the panchnama
accurately records the events that transpired at the shop.
12.4 The discrepancies between the testimony of PW-1
and PW-3 concerning the cleaning of the bottles, read with the
categorical denial by PW-2 of his presence at the spot, cannot be
treated as insignificant irregularities. They relate to the very
Page 18 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
process by which the sample was collected, divided and
preserved for analysis. Furthermore, PW-1 has admitted that the
outer coverings were sealed at his office without the presence of
the accused or the panch witnesses. Although this circumstance
must be assessed in the context of the applicable sealing
requirements, it adds to the necessity of scrutinising the
prosecution's evidence concerning the integrity and handling of
the sample.
12.5 It is, therefore, not a case in which the prosecution
has merely failed to prove an incidental detail. The deficiencies
concern the representativeness of the sample and compliance
with the prescribed conditions governing the containers in
which it was preserved. The prosecution has not established that
the chilli powder was properly mixed before sampling, nor has it
satisfactorily proved that the bottles were cleaned and dried in
accordance with Rule-14. These omissions assume greater
significance in view of the evidence of PW-2, who disowns his
presence during the sampling procedure.
12.6 The report of the Public Analyst at Exh.27 establishes
the result of the analysis of the material received by the
laboratory. However, the evidentiary value of that report must be
assessed in conjunction with the evidence concerning the
collection and preparation of the sample. Where the prosecution
fails to establish that the sample was representative of the food
article in question and that the prescribed safeguards
Page 19 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
concerning its collection and preservation were observed, the
analytical report cannot, by itself, cure those foundational
deficiencies.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds
that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the sample of red chilli powder was collected and
prepared in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the
Rules. The failure to establish proper mixing of the food article
before sampling, coupled with the absence of satisfactory
evidence regarding the cleaning and drying of the sample
bottles and the material doubt concerning the presence of the
panch witness, creates a reasonable doubt regarding the
reliability of the sampling procedure. The accused are, therefore,
entitled to the benefit of such doubt.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon an
independent re-appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence
and has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for recording
the order of acquittal. The findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court are based on a proper assessment of the evidence on
record and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or
infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The view taken
by the learned Trial Court is a reasonable and plausible view of
the evidence and circumstances of the case. Consequently, this
Page 20 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026

R/CR.A/390/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240523462016)
Court finds no compelling ground to disturb the order of
acquittal.
15. The impugned judgment and the order dated
judgment and the order dated 07.10.2014 in Criminal Case
No.3996 of 1997 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh is hereby confirmed.
16. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI…..
Page 21 of 21
Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 14:40:56 IST 2026