Gujarat High Court
Chirag Traders , Thro Tarachand ... vs State Of Gujarat on 12 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/263/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 263 of 2008
==========================================================
CHIRAG TRADERS , THRO TARACHAND DIPCHAND THAKKAR & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DK MODI(1317) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR MD MODI(1318) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR.ROHAN N.SHAH for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 12/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Issue Rule. By the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. The present revision application is preferred by original accused Nos.3 and 4, against the judgment and order dated 15.02.1999 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanera in Criminal Case No.1205 of 1994 convicted them for offences punishable under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for a period of 6 months R.I and further imposed fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default, thereof, 1 month R.I.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the aforestated order of conviction, the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court by way of Criminal Appeal No.10 of 1999. The said appeal also came to be dismissed Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 22:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/263/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined vide judgment and order dated 26.03.2008 by the Ld. Additional District Judge and First Fast Track Court, Deesa. It is against this concurrent finding of facts that the petitioner is before this Court by way of present revision application.
4. Facts in nutshell are that :-
(i) Mr.D.C. Patel- Food Inspector, who is the complainant visited Mahalaxmi Kirana Store at Dhanera on 20.07.1993 at 12:10, at that time the owner of the shop Kantibhai Uttambhai Shah was present and was found selling chilli powder, turmeric powder etc. and therefore, the complainant pickup 250 grams of packed plastic of turmeric powder approximately 13 number of caustic brand and was adulterated and was not labeled as per the relevant rules called upon Panch Chaganbhai Manjhibhai Thakkar and introduced himself as Food Inspector and on asking the name of the owner of shop was found as Kantibhai Uttambhai Shah and was also found having licence to sale food items and after informing that he intends to collect the sample of caustic brand turmeric powder weighing 250 grams which Kantibhai was selling from his shop and in this regards filled up form No.6 (Rule 12) under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 and issued notice at the spot and also obtained signature of Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 22:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/263/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined witness of Kantibhai and paid a sum of Rs.24 in all, for obtaining three packets of 250 grams turmeric powder and also obtained a bill to that effect. After obtaining the samples they were sealed in clean bag and after following the sealing procedure as prescribed under Rule 15, were sent for analyst and on receiving the report from the public analysis dated 19.08.1993, was not found in accordance with the PFA Act, 1954 and rules made thereunder and were found with oil soluble colour and rice starch and was found adulterated. Pursuant to which private complaint came to be lodged as Criminal Case No.1205 of 1994 and after recording the evidence of the complainant at Exh-16, charges were framed vide Exh-21 and after conducting of trial and recording further statements as per the provision of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner came to be convicted as stated hereinabove.
(ii) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said conviction, the petitioner is preferred an appeal before the Ld. Sessions Judge which also came to be rejected vide judgment and order dated 26.03.2008. Hence, the present petition is filed by appellant-original accused.
5. Learned Advocate Mr.M.D. Modi would submit that both the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court as materially erred and not considering the factual aspect of Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 22:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/263/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined non-proving of the samples been drawn and the same samples were sent for analysis, since there is material discrepancies with regards to the sample was sent in a wooden box, however, the same was received by the laboratory in corrugated box. Learned advocate raised further contentions however has limited his arguments only to this effect that when the prosecution has failed to prove that the samples collected are the same for which the analysis report is received is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Both the courts have committed serious error in convicting the present petitioners.
6. Learned APP Mr.Rohan N Shah would submit that the scope of revision against concurrent findings is very limited and the court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record. More particularly, when well reasoned order after appreciating both oral as well as documentary evidence has been recorded by both the courts below and there is no patent illegality on the face of the record which requires interference by this Court and hence, as thus prayed to reject the present application.
7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. At the outset, the extent of power of revisional court and the power to re-appreciate the evidence is required to be considered by this Court. As held in the case of Amit Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 22:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/263/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC Page 460 (Para 12, 13 and 20) Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that normally revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, there it must find place in class of a case and placed resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised, so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power of court. Merely, apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be sufficient ground for interference in such cases.
Thus, the scope for interference by revisional court with the findings of fact recorded by the Lower Court may be summarised as under:-
(i) finding of facts recorded by lower court are based on evidence not available on record.
(ii) material evidence, which could have reflected on merits and the decision of the case has be ignored by the lower Court.
(iii) finding of facts recorded on evidence no admissible
(iv) material evidence discarded by cheating it inadmissible.Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 22:25:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/263/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined
(v) finding of fact been perverse in terms of law.
(iv) While disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the lower court, the revisional court would not proceed to be appreciate or re-appreciate the evidence itself. The revisional court would only make it observation on the illegality committed by the lower court in appreciating the evidence and recording findings of fact and by setting aside the mistake of law committed by the lower Court.
8. Considering the aforestated principles, and on reading of the judgments of both the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. More particularly, Page 8 of the trial Court order. The Ld. Trial Court has recorded the discrepancies with regards to the packing material of the sample namely, the sample being collected in a wooden box, however were found in a cardboard box as per the receipt issued by the laboratory Vadodara at Exh-30 having found different from what has been collected by the complainant during surprise checking. This aspect is neither dealt by the trial Court nor by the First appellate Court and no finding to the effect has been recorded or dealt with in the reasoning part. Coupled with the fact that, the panchnama of the collection of the sample by the complainant at Exh-27 also records that the samples were sealed in wooden box. Even Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 22:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/263/2008 ORDER DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined in the deposition of this aspect has been challenged and has been accepted by the witness. Thus, when the samples drawn came to be sealed in wooden box and were sent for analysis in cardboard box and this aspect also reflects in the public analysis report indicating that they received sample in the cardboard box. Therefore, the initial drawing of sample and sealing thereof, undertaken while preparing the panchnama does not get any corroboration from the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence placed on record and therefore no conviction can be recorded based upon such doubtful sampling. It also goes without saying that when two views are possible,the one which weighs in favour of the accused ought to have been considered and having not considered so both the courts have committed error. Hence, present petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.02.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate, Dhanera in Criminal Case No.1205 of 1994confirmed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 1999 vide judgment and order dated dated 26.03.2008 are set aside and the petitioners are acquitted all the charges. Bail bond stands cancelled and sureties stands discharged. The present petition is allowed. R & P to be sent back before concerned court forthwith.
(P. M. RAVAL, J) MOHD SAIF ULLAH Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 22:25:46 IST 2025