Failure to prove ownership and non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedures vitiates prosecution under PFA Act.

On June 12, 2008, a Food Inspector visited 'Umiya Kirana & Parlour' and purchased 750 grams of groundnut oil for sampling

The Public Analyst reported the sample as adulterated because the B.R. Reading and Bellier Test values were below prescribed standards

Upon the accused's request, the counterpart sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL), Mysore, which also found it adulterated due to low iodine value, high Bellier Turbidity Temperature, and positive rancidity

The Trial Court acquitted the accused on November 9, 2011, citing non-compliance with mandatory sampling procedures

The appellant challenged this acquittal, arguing that the CFL report is final and supersedes previous inconsistencies

Whether the Trial Court erred in its appreciation of oral and documentary evidence regarding the cleanliness of utensils and compliance with Rule 14

Whether there was a mandatory breach of Rule 4(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules

Whether the prosecution established the identity and liability of the accused as the owner or person in charge of the establishment

Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which penalize the sale of adulterated food

Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, requiring samples to be taken in clean, dry containers

Rule 4(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 regarding the comparison of seal impressions

Section 378(4) of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal

The judicial principle from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, which establishes a double presumption of innocence in favor of an acquitted accused

The High Court observed that the Food Inspector (PW-3) admitted during cross-examination that he failed to collect any documentary evidence—such as a municipal license or bills—to prove the respondent was the owner or person in charge of the shop

The Inspector admitted that statutory rules were not strictly followed during sampling

The court highlighted a specific breach of Rule 4(4), noting that the CFL report at Exhibit 16 confirmed the non-comparison of seal impressions

Although the CFL report normally supersedes the Public Analyst's report, the court reasoned that procedural illegalities in the initial sampling (Rule 14) and later sealing (Rule 4(4)) vitiate the prosecution's case regardless of the chemical findings

The court found no perversity in the Trial Court's decision to grant the benefit of doubt

It held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant procedural lapses and the failure to establish the accused's legal link to the establishment

The bail bond was cancelled, and the Trial Court's findings were upheld as being in accordance with settled principles of law