IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 405 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

JASHUJI KESHAJI CHAVDA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. AYUSH S JAIN(16666) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 06/04/2026

JUDGMENT

1) By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read with

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.14/1993, wherein the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 16(1)a(i) and 7 of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- , as well as the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Appeal No.31/2007 confirming the order of conviction.

2) Heard Mr.Ayush S. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.

Shruti Pathak, learned APP for the respondent State.

3) Brief facts of the case are that, on 24.06.1992 at 9:15 a.m, respondent No.2 carried out a raid at the house of the applicant, who was selling milk. The complainant purchased 750 ml. Of milk by paying Rs.4.50 for the purpose of sample in presence of panchas. Thereafter, the complainant took the milk sample in three different bottles, packed and sealed it and added 20 drops of formalin. The public analyst gave report that as per the standard prescribed under the Rules, the SNF of milk should be at least 8.5% in one minute, whereas the sample should 7.6 % of SNF and therefore, the sample of milk is adulterated.

4) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complainant has not followed the mandatory requirements in taking, preserving, packing, sealing and sending the samples for public analysis; that the complainant has not taken due care and precaution by stirring the milk before taking sample. The Public analyst has not been examined by the prosecution to prove the case against the applicant even though the entire case is based on the report of public analyst. No panchnama is carried out by the complainant at the time of taking the sample. The complainant has not stated anywhere in the complaint that he had taken the sample after stirring the milk. All these facts suggest that there are number of infirmities and lapses in following the mandatory procedure stipulated under the Act. Therefore, both the learned Courts have committed error in convicting the applicant. He has further submitted that no any offence was made out under Section 7 and 16 of the Act and if alleged case is falling under aduleterated, at no point of time the prosecution is able to prove breach of Sections 7 and 16(1)A(i) of the Act. In the sample, the milk fat is more than the requirement (limit of

3.5%) which shows that nothing is added or adulterated, which was also natural and this sample cannot be considered as adulterated and the complainant could not have misused his power. Further, the milk SNF is found 7.61 as against the requiremetn of 8.5, which cannot be said to be more than 20%. the said difference is natural and possible if the percentage of fat is more. Therefore, the applicant ought to have been acquitted. Both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record. Therefore, he has prayed to allow the revision application.

5) Learned APP for the respondent State has supported the case and the judgment of both the Courts and submitted that no inter