Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2895

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Madhu Kapoor – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 320 of 2014

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Lokender Kutlehria
For the Respondents: Subhash Punshi

A conviction for the sale of adulterated food under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is unsustainable if no specific quality standard for the relevant food article is prescribed under the Act or its Rules.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7 and 16(1A) - Accused acquitted of charge of selling adulterated laddu - Food items without prescribed standards under Appendix 'B' of the Rules cannot be deemed adulterated merely on presence of extraneous matter - Appellate court finding of acquittal is reasonable and based on absence of prescribed legislative standards for the food article in question. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Criminal Appeal against acquittal - Principles under Section 378 CrPC - High Court should not interfere unless findings are patently perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or where no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion; if two views are possible, the view of acquittal must be maintained. (Para 9)

Facts of the case:
The respondent was charged with selling adulterated laddu containing dirt and dust. The trial court convicted the accused, but the appellate court set aside the conviction, citing lack of independent witnesses at the time of sampling and the absence of prescribed quality standards for laddu under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The State appealed the acquittal.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that while the testimony of the Food Inspector can be reliable even without independent witnesses, the fundamental defect remains that no standard for 'laddu' is prescribed in the Rules, precluding a conviction for adulteration.

Issues: Whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the respondent and whether a conviction can stand for a food article when no specific legal standard has been prescribed.

Ratio Decidendi: Unless a standard for a food item is prescribed under the relevant Act/Rules, it cannot be legally categorized as adulterated; thus, an acquittal on this basis is a reasonable view that warrants no appellate interference.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.5.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 22.6.2012 and order of sentence dated 23.6.2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court for convenience.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant, Food Inspector, MC Shimla, filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 16(1A) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA Act). It was asserted that Virendra Chauhan (CW5) was appointed as a Food Inspector for the local areas of MC Shimla. She inspected the premises known as M/s Lovely Sweet Shop, Rivoli Road, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla on 7.11.2007, at about 3.00 PM. Respondent/accused Madhu Kapoor was conducting the business of the shop as its proprietor. She had kept about 40 kilograms of laddu sweet in her shop for sale to the general public. The Food Inspector revealed her identity and issued a notice (Ex.CW5/A) expressing her desire to purchase a sample of laddu for analysis. She purchased 3 boxes, (each containing 500 grams of laddu), on cash payment of ₹150/- for analysis. The accused issued a receipt (Ex.CW5/B). Ms. Virendra Chauhan (CW5) labelled and wrapped the boxes in thick paper. The paper slip bearing Serial No. and Code No.S-II/2775 (Ex.CW5/C), issued and signed by the Local Health Authority (LHA), MC Shimla, was affixed with gum from top to bottom of each pack. She obtained the signatures of the accused in such a manner that they appeared on the paper slip and the wrapper. She fastened each box with strong thread and sealed it with sealing wax. She put at least four seal impressions on each pack and covered the knots with the seal. Narinder Thakur and Charan Dass (CW4) witnessed the seizure and sealing process. Ms. Virendra Chauhan (CW5) prepared a spot memo (Ex.CW5/D) and obtained the signatures of the accused and the witnesses. She sent one part of the sample with Form-VII (Ex.CW5/E) and one copy of the seal impression in a sealed envelope to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat, through Charan Dass for analysis. She informed LHA, MC Shimla, about the sending of the sample vide letter (Ex.CW5/F), and deposited the remaining two packets and Form-VII with LHA, MC Shimla. Charan Dass (CW4) deposited the sample with the Public Analyst, Kandaghat and obtained a receipt (Ex.CW4/A). Public Analyst Kandaghat analysed the sample and found that the contents of the sample were contaminated with dirt and dust, and the sample of laddu was adulterated. Food Inspector Ms. Virendra Chauhan (CW5) submitted a letter (Ex.CW5/J) for obtaining the prosecution sanction. The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) went through the documents and issued a written consent (Ex.CW1/A). The consent and the documents were forwarded to Ashok Mangla (CW1), who filed a complaint before the Court and intimated LHA, MC Shimla, about the filing of the complaint. A notice (Ex.CW2/E) was sent to the accused along with a copy of the report of analysis under Section 13(2) of the PFA Act.

Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The complainant examined five witnesses to prove its case. Ashok Mangla (CW1) filed the complaint. Ram Singh (CW2) proved that the report of the Public Analyst was received in the office of LHA, the complainant was directed to file the complaint, and the compliance of Section 13(2) of the PFA Act was made. Pradeep Kumar (CW3) w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2895

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, JState of H.P. – AppellantVersusMadhu Kapoor – RespondentCr. Appeal No. 320 of 2014

A conviction for the sale of adulterated food under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is unsustainable if no specific quality standard for the relevant food article is prescribed under the Act or its Rules.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Madhu Kapoor – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 320 of 2014