Non-compliance with mandatory sampling hygiene and seal comparison standards under PFA Rules necessitates acquittal in food adulteration cases.

On November 20, 2009, a Food Inspector visited "Rajesh Coffee Center" and purchased 900 grams of tomato sauce for analysis

The sample was divided into three jars, treated with formalin, and sealed.

The Public Analyst’s report found the sample adulterated due to low acetic acid (0.50% vs. minimum 1.0%) and the presence of prohibited synthetic color Erythrosine

A second analysis by the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) confirmed the adulteration

The Trial Court acquitted the accused on November 18, 2011, citing procedural lapses

The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation appealed this acquittal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence and holding that the prosecution failed to prove the cleaning of utensils as per Rule 14

2. Whether the non-compliance with Rule 4(4) regarding the comparison of seals by the Director of CFL vitiates the prosecution

3. Whether the judgment of acquittal suffers from manifest illegality or perversity

Section 7 and Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, 1954, which define and penalize the sale of adulterated food

Rule 14 of the PFA Rules, 1955, mandating that samples be collected in clean, dry containers

Rule 4(4) of the PFA Rules, which requires the Director of the Food Laboratory to compare seals with specimen impressions, a mandatory provision as established in State of Gujarat v. Rashikbhai Atramdasbhai Patel

The principles of appellate review in acquittals as laid down in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing the "double presumption of innocence"

The High Court found that the Food Inspector admitted during cross-examination that this was the second sample collected that day and the instruments used were not washed between sessions.

This constituted a fatal breach of the mandatory requirements of Rule 14.

the court observed that the CFL report failed to include a mandatory certificate or endorsement stating that the seals on the sample container were compared with the specimen seal impression, resulting in a violation of Rule 4(4)

The court noted that specific guidelines for adding formalin were also not strictly followed

Applying the standard of review for acquittals, the court determined that the Trial Court’s findings were reasonable and not perverse, as the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the sampling process beyond a reasonable doubt

It held that the mandatory procedural safeguards under Rules 14 and 4(4) were violated, rendering the prosecution’s evidence unreliable

The court concluded that no manifest error of law or misreading of evidence existed that would justify reversing the acquittal, especially given the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

The bail bond was cancelled