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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
