Acquittal upheld where Rule 14 was breached and milk adulteration analysis relied on unreliable Gerber testing.

On 19 April 2006, a Food Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation purchased 1,500 ml of cow milk for ₹18 from the respondent’s dairy in Ahmedabad in the presence of a panch witness.

The milk was divided into three parts, formalin was thereafter added, and the samples were sealed and sent for analysis.

The Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated because its milk-fat and milk-solids-not-fat content were below the prescribed standards.

Sanction was obtained and the respondent was prosecuted under Sections 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

The trial court acquitted him, holding, inter alia, that Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 had not been complied with, that the Gerber method of analysis was unreliable, and that formalin had been added after the sample was divided.

The Municipal Corporation challenged the acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

1. Whether the alleged non-compliance with Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, concerning the employment and cleaning of sampling vessels, vitiated the prosecution case.

2. Whether the Public Analyst’s reliance on the Gerber method constituted a valid and reliable basis for concluding that the milk sample was adulterated.

3. Whether the addition of formalin after the milk had been divided into three parts affected the validity of the sampling and analysis process.

The Court applied Sections 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which prohibit the sale of adulterated food and prescribe punishment for such conduct.

It further applied Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, requiring the use of properly employed and cleaned vessels for collecting food samples; compliance must be supported by positive evidence.

The Court held that an analytical method must be sufficiently reliable and approved to sustain a finding of adulteration, and accepted the settled principle that the Gerber method does not provide an accurate or foolproof basis for determining the relevant milk standards.

The Court also considered authorities concerning the proper stage for adding formalin to milk samples, including Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Neetam Manikrao Kature, G.K. Upadhayay v. Kanubhai Raimalbhai Rabari, K.G. Patel, Food Inspector v. Navinchandra Bhagvandas Lapsiwala, State of Gujarat v. Kaushikbhai Ambalal Patel, and State of U.P. v. Badri.

The High Court found that the trial court’s conclusion regarding Rule 14 was supported by the record because the prosecution produced no positive evidence establishing the employment and cleaning of the vessels used for collecting the sample.

This procedural deficiency undermined the reliability of the sample.

Independently, the Public Analyst had used the Gerber method, which the High Court regarded as neither foolproof nor sufficiently accurate to support the conclusion that the milk failed the statutory standards.

The Court also noted the evidence that formalin was added only after the milk had been divided into three portions, an issue relied upon by the respondent and considered in the context of the sampling procedure.

Since the acquittal was based on sustainable findings and was not perverse, the appellate court found no justification to interfere with it.

It held that the prosecution had failed to establish compliance with Rule 14 and that the Gerber-based analysis was not a sufficiently reliable foundation for the finding of adulteration.

The appeal against acquittal was dismissed, the impugned judgment dated 19 October 2011 was sustained, the bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.