Food-adulteration acquittal stands where defective sampling and invalid sanction undermine the prosecution.

On 5 November 2003, a Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of loose soji from the respondent’s shop for analysis.

The Public Analyst reported the sample adulterated.

The complaint was filed on 5 February 2005, and the trial court acquitted the respondent of offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules.

The State appealed under Section 378 CrPC.

The High Court noted concerns including the delay in analysis and prosecution, the sanction being granted only against the retailer, and the absence of evidence that the vessels used for sampling had been properly cleaned.

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was so erroneous or perverse as to warrant appellate interference

Whether the prosecution had established the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, considering the defects in sanction, sampling, and the handling and analysis of the sample

Under Sections 2(i-a)(a), 7(i)(3) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the prosecution had to prove the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt; Section 20 required written consent for prosecution, while the judgment also considered the Act’s provisions concerning warranty and the accused’s opportunity to seek analysis under Section 13(2), alongside Rules 13(2) and 14.

On an appeal against acquittal, an appellate court may review and reappreciate the evidence, but must account for the strengthened presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed (Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, as discussed at paras. 19–20; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, para. 19; Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, para. 20).

The High Court found no sufficient basis to displace the trial court’s assessment.

The sanction was granted against the retailer without recorded reasons for not prosecuting the manufacturer and distributor; the evidence and panchnama did not establish that the sampling vessels were clean; and the sample was analysed after its shelf life, with insects found in it.

The Court also noted the substantial, unexplained delay in filing the complaint and the delayed notice under Section 13(2).

These deficiencies, together with the absence of credible evidence connecting the respondent to the alleged offence, supported the trial court’s conclusion that guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Applying the principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Court held that the trial court’s view was a reasonable one and disclosed no error warranting interference.

The appeal was dismissed, the acquittal confirmed, the respondent’s bail bond cancelled, and the record and proceedings ordered returned to the trial court.