[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Crla / 805U / 1999State vs Prabhu Lal (2026:Rj-Jd:20545) on 29 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:20545]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 376/1999
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Prabhu Lal son of Tullu Mal, Seller (Proprietor of shop), Narain
Das Bhagwan Das, Gantaghar, Jodhpur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Urmila Chauhan, Amicus Curiae
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
29/04/2026
1. The present criminal appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment
dated 12.02.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 2/1992, whereby the accused-
respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 7/16
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
2. Considering that the matter pertains to the year 1999 and
arises out of an appeal against acquittal preferred by the State,
and further noting that none appears on behalf of the respondent,
this Court, in the interest of justice, deemed it appropriate to
appoint Ms. Urmila Chauhan as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court
on behalf of the respondent under the Free Legal Aid Scheme of
the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:32:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20545] (2 of 4) [CRLA-376/1999]
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 15.12.1988,
the Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused-respondent at
Narain Das Bhagwan Das, Gantagar, Jodhpur and found red chilli
powder kept for sale for human consumption. A sample of the said
article was taken in accordance with the prescribed procedure
and, after completing necessary formalities and obtaining
sanction, a complaint came to be filed against the accused-
respondent for offences under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act. The trial, however, culminated in acquittal
vide judgment dated 12.02.1999 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial court
has gravely erred both on facts as well as in law in acquitting the
accused-respondent despite there being cogent and reliable
evidence on record to establish the charge against the accused. It
is contended that the findings recorded by the trial court are
perverse and contrary to the material available on record,
inasmuch as vital evidence has not been properly appreciated in
its correct perspective. It is further submitted that the trial court
has erroneously extended the benefit of doubt to the accused by
placing reliance on inapplicable considerations and by ignoring the
relevant provisions of law governing the field. Learned Public
Prosecutor, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment of
acquittal be set aside and the accused-respondent be convicted in
accordance with law.
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:32:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20545] (3 of 4) [CRLA-376/1999]
5. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-
respondent submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the
learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity
warranting interference by this Court. It is contended that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
and the findings recorded by the trial court are based on proper
appreciation of the evidence available on record. It is further
submitted that the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view
and in an appeal against acquittal, this Court ought not to
interfere unless the conclusions drawn are wholly unreasonable or
contrary to the evidence on record. Learned counsel, therefore,
prays that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as
learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-
respondent and perused the material available on record including
the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court.
7. The finding recorded by the learned trial court that no
adulteration was established and that the ingredients of the
sample were found to be within the prescribed standard, except
for the appearance of coal tar red colour in the red chilli powder,
does not call for interference. Mere appearance of such colour, in
the absence of any supporting report of the Public Analyst or the
Central Food Laboratory indicating adulteration, cannot by itself be
treated as conclusive proof of adulteration. The learned trial court
has rightly appreciated this aspect.
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:32:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20545] (4 of 4) [CRLA-376/1999]
8. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal,
interference is warranted only when the findings recorded by the
trial court are perverse, manifestly illegal or wholly unreasonable.
Where two views are possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the view favouring the accused deserves to be adopted. In
the present case, in absence of any cogent analytical material
establishing adulteration, the prosecution has failed to discharge
its burden beyond reasonable doubt.
9. The conclusions arrived at by the learned trial court are
based on proper appreciation of the material available on record
and constitute a plausible view. No perversity or illegality is
discernible so as to warrant interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 12.02.1999
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur is upheld.
The appeal stands dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
11. The record be returned to the learned trial court.
12. The learned Amicus Curiae shall be entitled to remuneration
as per the Rules of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
(FARJAND ALI),J
48-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:32:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
