Non-compliance with mandatory ghee-sampling procedures vitiates prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

On 6 September 2010, an Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Food Inspector visited the respondent’s dairy premises and purchased 600 grams of ghee for analysis after the respondent stated that he owned the business and prepared the ghee himself.

The sample was divided into three bottles and forwarded in accordance with the prosecution’s version. The Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, subsequently reported that the sample failed to conform to the prescribed standards because the rancidity test was positive and the fatty-acid composition did not correspond to ghee.

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

The Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 9766 of 2010 on 20 July 2012. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondent-accused of the offences under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Whether the prosecution proved compliance with the mandatory sampling requirements under Rules 14 and 4(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

Whether the trial Court’s appreciation of evidence was illegal, perverse, or otherwise warranted appellate interference in an appeal against acquittal.

The Court applied Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, concerning the prohibition and punishment of sale of adulterated food.

It further applied Rules 14 and 4(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which prescribe mandatory safeguards for the proper collection, preparation, sealing, and sampling of food articles, including ghee.

Non-compliance with these mandatory requirements undermines the reliability of the sample and may vitiate the prosecution.

On appellate review of acquittal, the Court relied on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169, reiterating that although an appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence and an acquittal should not be disturbed where two reasonable views are possible.

The Court also followed decisions of the Gujarat High Court holding that breach of Rules 14 and 4(4) in sampling cases is fatal to the prosecution.

Although the Central Food Laboratory report indicated that the ghee was not compliant with the prescribed standards, the prosecution failed to establish that the sample had been collected in strict conformity with the mandatory procedure.

The Food Inspector and the accompanying witness admitted that the prescribed procedure for drawing a sample of ghee had not been followed, and the evidence did not establish that the container had been properly heated before sampling and sealing, as required by the Rules.

In the absence of proof of compliance with Rules 14 and 4(4), the analytical report could not safely sustain the conviction.

The trial Court’s conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt was therefore a reasonable view supported by the evidence.

Applying the heightened restraint applicable to appeals against acquittal, the High Court found no perversity, illegality, or manifest error warranting interference.

The appeal filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation under Section 378 CrPC was dismissed, and the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20 July 2012 were confirmed.

The respondent’s bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial Court.