Gutkha lacking standards under the PFA Act cannot be deemed adulterated or misbranded for prosecution.

On May 20, 1998, a Food Inspector inspected the shop of Accused No. 1 (the vendor) and purchased samples of "Tulsi Gutkha".

The samples were sent to a Public Analyst, who opined that the product was "adulterated and misbranded" for containing Magnesium Carbonate and violating labeling rules.

Sanction for prosecution was obtained from a Senior Drug Inspector holding additional charge as Assistant Commissioner, Local Health Authority.

The 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj-Kutch, acquitted the respondents on February 23, 2012, holding that gutkha was not a standardized food item under the PFA Act.

The State of Gujarat appealed this acquittal.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in holding that the PFA Act does not apply to "gutkha" as it is not a standardized food item defined in Appendix B?

2. Whether the sanction for prosecution granted by a Senior Drug Inspector holding additional charge was legally valid?

3. Whether there was a manifest error or perversity in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence that warrants an interference with the order of acquittal?

The Court applied the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act) and the Rules of 1955, specifically Rule 37A(2)(b) regarding "proprietary food" which refers to non-standardized items.

It relied on Section 19 of the General Clauses Act to determine that an officer holding "additional charge" below the required rank cannot legally grant sanction.

The court further applied the principle of "double presumption" of innocence in acquittal appeals, following Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which mandates that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable views are possible.

The Court observed that "Tulsi Gutkha" does not fall within the specific standards prescribed in Appendix B of the PFA Rules, making it a "proprietary food" for which no centralized standards existed at the time of the offense.

Consequently, the presence of Magnesium Carbonate—while listed as a violation—could not sustain a conviction because the product itself was not standardized under the Act.

Under the established precedent (1975 GLR 982), a Senior Drug Inspector, even if holding additional charge, is of a lower rank than the Assistant Commissioner and is thus incompetent to grant sanction.

The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the service of the mandatory notice under Section 13(2) of the Act.

The court held that the sanction was void as it was granted by an incompetent authority, and the prosecution failed to demonstrate any manifest illegality or perversity in the trial court's findings.

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment of acquittal and the bail bonds were ordered to be cancelled.