Gujarat HC Upholds Food-Adulteration Acquittal Over Unmixed Chilli Powder Sample And Unproven Bottle Cleaning

On 7 August 1996, a Food Inspector collected a sample of loose red chilli powder from a shop in Junagadh.

The Public Analyst reported artificial oil-soluble synthetic colours in the sample, and a prosecution was instituted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (“the Act”).

The Trial Court acquitted the accused. The Food Inspector appealed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In the appeal, the High Court considered, among other matters, evidence that the chilli powder had not been mixed before sampling, uncertainty about whether the sample bottles had been cleaned and dried, and the panch witness’s denial that he had attended the sampling.

Sections 7(1) and 16 of the Act govern the relevant prohibition and offence.

Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 requires a food sample to be taken in clean and dry bottles, jars, or other suitable containers; the prosecution must prove compliance with this requirement, and non-compliance may be fatal to the case.

The Court also relied on the requirement that a sample of chilli powder be representative of the stock, which entails properly intermixing the contents before sampling.

On an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may review the evidence, but should not disturb an acquittal where the Trial Court’s view is reasonable and plausible; where two reasonable views are possible, the one favouring the accused should prevail.

The Food Inspector admitted that he had not mixed the chilli powder before dividing it into portions, leaving the prosecution unable to establish that the sample represented the stock for sale.

The evidence also failed to establish when or how the bottles were cleaned and dried: the Food Inspector’s account was not recorded in the panchnama, and the helper stated that the bottles had not been cleaned at the shop.

The panch witness denied being present, further undermining confidence in the recorded sampling procedure.

The analyst’s report proved the result for the material received by the laboratory but could not cure these deficiencies in collection and preservation.

The Trial Court’s acquittal therefore remained a reasonable view of the evidence.

Finding no perversity, illegality, or other compelling ground to interfere, it dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Trial Court’s order of acquittal dated 7 October 2014.

The bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were ordered to be returned to the Trial Court.