Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 9934
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. Pinto, J
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
ANAND MAHENDRABHAI PATEL(NOMINEE OF THE MANUFACTURING FIRM) – Respondent
Criminal Case No. 2484 of 2005
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.C.M.Shah
Acquittal can only be overturned when substantial legal errors are identified; presumption of innocence prevails if multiple reasonable conclusions exist from evidence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 2(i-a)(m), 7(i) and 7(v), 16 - Appeal against acquittal - Trial Court acquitted accused based on improper evidence handling; Court stressed the importance of proper procedures for evidence collection and the accused’s rights under the law. (Paras 3, 9, 10)
(B) Acquittal - The appellate court noted that acquittal should only be disturbed with substantial evidence of error; presumption of innocence reinforced by initial ruling. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
Complainant conducted a raid leading to allegations of adulteration which were not successfully substantiated. Inefficacies in evidence handling by the prosecution and failure to respect due process led to acquittal.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court’s judgment was deemed just and proper, with no errors found in its assessment of the case.
Issues: Whether the procedures for obtaining evidence were followed according to the requisite laws and whether the trial court erred in its acquittal based on those procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reiterated that the appellate court has a duty to respect acquittals unless clear errors in law or evidence are presented.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed under crpc against acquittal for food adulteration. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. state argues improper evaluation and legal errors in trial court's acquittal. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court emphasizes appellate powers and principles governing acquittals. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. no irregularities found in trial court's decision, thus affirming acquittal. (Para 10) |
| 5. final order confirms trial court's judgment confirming acquittal. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
S.V. Pinto, J.
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 respondent – accused from the offences punishable under Section s 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 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 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 23.06.200
