Acquittal upheld where delay in analysis and non-compliance with mandatory packing rules vitiated food sample integrity.

On September 15, 2005, a Food Inspector visited the accused's grocery firm and collected samples of "Gaay Brand agmarked Soji" (Batch No. 5, packed 08/2005)

The samples were sent to the Public Analyst, Rajkot, who declared the sample adulterated due to the presence of living and dead larvae insects

The trial Court acquitted the accused on February 8, 2018, noting a delay of one month and thirteen days in sending the sample for analysis and finding no mention of insects in the original panchnama

The State appealed this acquittal, arguing that mandatory requirements were met and the Public Analyst’s report proved adulteration

1. Whether the trial Court was justified in passing the judgment and order of acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence

2. Whether there was a breach of mandatory provisions under the PFA Act and Rules, specifically regarding the packing process and the timing of the analysis

3. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused were the owners of the firm at the time of the sample collection

The court applied Section 2(1)(a)(f) and Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act regarding the sale of insect-infested food

It strictly relied on Rule 16(b) and (c) of the PFA Rules, which mandate a double-safeguard packing procedure (wrapping in thick paper with adhesive followed by twine and sealing) to prevent tampering

The court followed the principle from Jethalal Lallubhai v. Baroda Municipal Corporation, holding Rule 16 to be mandatory and its breach sufficient for acquittal

It also emphasized Rule 13(2) regarding the accused's right to have the sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory, and the presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals as established in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka

The High Court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed due to procedural lapses and evidentiary gaps. First, although the Public Analyst found insects, the Food Inspector admitted in cross-examination that no insects were visible when the sample was originally drawn

Second, the sample reached the analyst 43 days after collection, and the prosecution failed to provide evidence regarding the storage conditions during this interval to rule out natural infestation

Third, the Food Inspector's testimony failed to prove compliance with the distinct two-step packing process required by Rule 16(b), which is a mandatory safeguard

Finally, since the complaint was lodged nine months after the report was received, the accused's right under Section 13(2) was prejudiced as the "best before" date had lapsed, rendering a second analysis futile

The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the ownership of the firm by Respondent No. 1

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court's order of acquittal. All bail bonds were cancelled, and the record was ordered back to the Trial Court