Acquittal stands where the prosecution fails to prove valid sanction and mandatory sampling compliance.

On 10 September 1991, a Food Inspector collected a sample of “Taja Iodized Salt” from the respondent firm’s premises. The Public Analyst and, subsequently, the Central Food Laboratory reported that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard.

The Food Inspector obtained sanction and prosecuted the firm, its partners and the vendor under Sections 7(iv) read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial court acquitted them. The State appealed against that acquittal.

Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondents.

Whether the trial court properly appreciated the prosecution evidence, and whether its judgment disclosed any illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting appellate interference.

Section 7(iv) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, formed the basis of the prosecution; Section 20 required prosecution to be instituted by, or with the written consent of, the competent authority.

The court also considered the prosecution’s compliance with Section 13(2) of the Act and Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, concerning the sample and its handling.

On appeals against acquittal, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, and the authorities discussed in the judgment recognize the appellate court’s power to review the evidence, while requiring it to bear in mind the strengthened presumption of innocence and not disturb an acquittal where two reasonable views are possible.

Although the laboratory reports indicated that the salt did not conform to the applicable standard, the prosecution evidence had material deficiencies.

The court found that the sanction under Section 20 was not shown to have been granted in accordance with law; the panch witness did not support the contents of the panchnama, leaving key sampling documents and the purchase receipt unproved; and the prosecution did not examine the Food Inspector’s assistant, who had been present during the sampling process. The prosecution also failed to establish compliance with Rule 14 and Section 13(2).

In light of these defects, the court concluded that the trial court’s acquittal was a reasonable view of the evidence and disclosed no basis for appellate interference.

It dismissed the State’s appeal, confirmed the acquittal, cancelled the bail bond and directed that the record and proceedings be returned to the trial court.