IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 534 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Versus YOGESHBHAI LILACHANDBHAI SHETH ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR. N T JOSHI(6837) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 SHRIKAR H BHATT(2573) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 13/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of present application the applicant seeks the following relief:

“c Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed below Exh.31 in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2012 dated 05/02/2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.K., Himmatnagar and further be pleased to confirm judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19/01/2012 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar passed in Criminal Case No.284 of 2003;.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the original complainant, a Food Inspector, visited the shop of the respondent–original accused and purchased a sample of Mohanthal. After completing the necessary formalities of packing, sealing, and drawing the panchnama, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standards under the Act and Rules, as the percentage of Tartrazine Yellow colour was found to be higher than the permissible limit. After obtaining the necessary sanction, the complainant lodged a complaint. Upon recording the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness and after conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate held the accused guilty of offences under Sections 2(1-a)(a), (j) and (m) read with Sections 7(1) and 7(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, punishable under Section 16(1) of the Act. The accused was sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default, to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment.

3. Learned APP appearing for the applicant–State submits that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar, was pleased to convict the accused; however, the learned Appellate Court has overturned the said finding without assigning sufficient and cogent reasons, despite there being sufficient evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the prescribed sanction was duly obtained, and the relevant evidence was produced at Exhibit 26. The report of the Public Analyst was also supplied to the accused, and the receipt in that regard is produced on record; however, the learned Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the same and, taking a hyper-technical view, acquitted the accused. It is further submitted that while drawing the sample, the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was duly complied with, which aspect has also not been properly considered by the learned Appellate Court. The sample of Mohanthal was found to be adulterated and not in conformity with the prescribed standards under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused; however, the learned Appellate Court has erred in allowing the appeal. Hence, the learned APP has requested that the present appeal be allowed.

4. Having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it appears that the sample of Mohanthal came to be drawn and the appeal has been filed mainly on th