Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Anand Mahendrabhai Patel(Nominee Of ... on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 677 of 2017
(AGAINST ACQUITTAL)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ANAND MAHENDRABHAI PATEL(NOMINEE OF THE MANUFACTURING
FIRM) & ANR.
========================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kathalal (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 2484 of 2005 on 29.11.2016, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined respondent - accused from the offences punishable under Sections 2(i-a)(m), 7(i) and 7(v) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 1.1. The respondents hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. On 20.04.2005 at around 11:45 hours, the complainant, Nimish Vijaykant Mehta, Food Inspector, visited Kiran Oil Depot, near Bank of India at Kathlal, District Kheda, along with panch witness Kanubhai Haribhai Taili. The accused no.1 was present and he was conducting business and the complainant found various kind of edible oil being sold. After giving intimation to the accused no.1, the complainant took 5 liter plastic jar which was packed and completely covered with a transparent plastic and in the inside of the plastic was a label, on which, was written in English, "'Vimal Filtered Groundnut Oil', 5 litre (4.55 kg), manufactured day, February, 2005, MRP Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined Rs.325/-, manufactured by 'Vimal Oil and Foods Limited', ISO 9001: 2000 company, Palavasana, near Palavasana Railway Crossing, Highway Mehsana 384003, Best Before within 6 months from date of packing". On the other side of the jar was the label, in which, 'Healthy, Happy You', was written and in Hindi "Vimal Filtered Groundnut Oil", etc. was printed. The jar was sealed and it was shaken properly and 750grams of groundnut oil was measured and taken in a steel utensil and Rs.42/- was paid as cost price towards the same. The groundnut oil was thereafter filled in three dry, clean, moistureless and odourless glass bottles in equal proportions, after stirring the same properly, and the bottles were closed with a cork in such a manner that no leakage would occur or that no moisture would enter into the bottles. The bottles were sealed as per rules and one sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority. The report of the Public Analyst was received which showed that the sample of filtered groundnut oil is adulterated under Section 2 (i-a)(m)(j) of PFA Act, 1954 as it does not conform with the standards prescribed in the PFA Rules, 1955. After the due Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined procedure, the sanction to file the complaint was received by the complainant and the complainant filed the complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Kathlal, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.914 of 2012 (Old No. 2484 of 2005).
2.2. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. As the case was a private warrant triable case, the complainant N.V.Mehta stepped into the witness box and deposed on oath at Exh.21 and produced documentary evidences at Exh.22 to Exh.56. During pendency of the trial, the accused no.1 expired on 23.06.2009 and hence, the trial qua the accused no.1 was abated by an order dated 10.01.2011.
Considering the evidence on record, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.58 and on behalf of the accused nos. 2 and 3, the statement of the accused no. 2 was recorded at Exh.59 and Exh.60 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined prosecution was taken on record.
2.3. After the evidence of the complainant was closed, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded wherein in the accused denied the evidence on record. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, was pleased to acquit the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 2(i-a)(m), 7(i) and 7(v) of the Act.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of natural justice. The learned Trial Court has erred in evaluating the evidence on record of the case and without appreciating the evidence in its real perspective, acquitted the accused. There are direct and indirect evidence connecting the respondent with the offence which are produced in the Court Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined and in spite of the fact, the learned Trial Court, without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, straight way arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Apex Court which are applicable to the facts of the present case and the impugned judgment and order is perverse and suffering from legal and factual error apparent on the record. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses which was fully supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is without giving any cogent and convincing reasons, illegal, invalid and improper, and therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 :
AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) ........ From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;] (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreci-
ate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limita-
tion, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and com-
pelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against ac- quittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be pre- sumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
7. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence on record is reappreciated. PW-1 Nimish Vijaykant Mehta examined at Exh.21 is the complainant, who has narrated the entire procedure that was undertaken by him on 20.04.2005 when he had visited the shop of the accused no.1. The witness has produced all the necessary documents at Exhs.24 to 56. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the panchanama produced at Exh.28 does not state that the utensil and the bottles were cleaned at the place where the sample was taken and the materials for taking the sample was provided by the office. The materials are taken as required from the office store room and the bottles of the size that 375 milliliters of liquid could be filled in them. He had filled about 250 grams of filtered groundnut oil Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined in the bottles and they were closed with a cock which was a v- shaped cork made from wood. After the bottles were filled there was a space where about 50 grams of groundnut oil could be filled in and that space was empty but that space was not vacuumed. The oil that was filled in the bottle would be constantly in touch with the oxygen and oil is a product containing saturated fat and unsaturated fat. The document produced at Exh.36 which is the intimation does not bear the signature of the accused and it was sent on 27.04.2005. The batch number is not mentioned in the bill at Exh.38 and it is not mentioned that filtered groundnut oil was purchased. The date of packing was February 2005 and it was "Best Before 6 Months"
from the date of packing mentioned on the jar and the time period for the best before would expire in August 2005. The complaint was filed on 18.08.2005 i.e. before the date of best before would expire and the accused have a right under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act for getting the sample reanalyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. The notices produced at Exhs.50 to 52 are dated 22.08.2005 and the duty of sending the notice under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act along with the report of the Public Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined Analyst is of the Local Health Authority. He cannot say as to whether the Local Health Authority had applied his mind and before giving the sanction and in the document produced at Exh.32, the signature of the Local Health Authority is not on the receipt. The invoice produced at Exh.38 was not prepared in his presence and the invoice at Exh.38 is of "Refined Oil".
8.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Kanubhai Harilal Taili at Exh.62 and the witness is the panch witness as per the case of the prosecution but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and cross examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the Food Inspector had taken the sample from the shop of the accused no.1 on 12.04.2005, and as per the complaint, the sample of 'Vimal' brand filtered groundnut oil was taken. The invoice produced at Exh.38 shows the description of the accessible commodity as refined oil and in the description and specification of goods 'Vimal Groundnut Oil' is shown and it is not filtered groundnut oil. As far as the method of Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined taking the sample is concerned, the Food Inspector has admitted that the utensil and the bottles were not cleaned at the place where the sample was taken and there is no evidence on record as to when the vessels were cleaned. Even as far as the stirring of the mixture and making the entire mixture homogeneous and representative is concerned there is no evidence that the entire mixture of groundnut oil was stirred properly and made homogeneous. Moreover, as per the evidence the packing of the groundnut oil was done in February, 2005 and on the jar itself, it was mentioned that it is best within 6 months. The sample has been taken on 02.04.2005 at 11:45 hours but the notice under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act was given by the Local Health Authority on 22.08.2005 that is after the expiry of the best before as mentioned on the sample, and hence, it is on record that the accused did not get sufficient opportunity for filing the application for sending the sample for analysis at the Central Food Laboratory.
9.1 This court, in the cases of State of Gujarat Vs. Kaushikbhai Ambalal Patel in Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 2002 and State of Gujarat Vs. Kanubhai Keshavlal Patel in Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined Criminal Appeal No.996 of 2004, has held that the prosecution ought to prove that the utensils or bottles were cleaned at the spot and when there was no positive evidence with regard to the cleaning of the vessels at the spot the mandatory requirements of Rule-14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules are not complied with and the accused could be entitled to an acquittal. In light of the above discussion, there is no evidence on record that the mandatory provisions of Rule-14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules were complied with and that the method of taking sample was properly undertaken by the Food Inspector and in light of the fact that the notice under section 13(2) of the PFA Act was given 6 months after the oil was packed in February, 2005 which was the best before date, the accused did not get sufficient opportunity for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for reanalysis and the mandatory provisions have not been complied with.
10. In view of the above, the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/677/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
11. The impugned judgment and the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kathalal in Criminal Case No.2484 of 2005 on 29.11.2016 is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:40:02 IST 2025