##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:19398]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 589/1999

State of Rajasthan

----Appellant

Versus

Rajnikant son of Basant Lal Jain, M/s Mahaveer Kirana & General

Store, Fojka Badla, Doongarpur

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shriram Choudhary

For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

23/04/2026

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State of

Rajasthan under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

against the judgment and order dated 30.06.1999 passed in

Criminal Case No. 465/1994 by the Court of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Dungarpur, whereby the accused–respondent

Rajnikant son of Basant Lal Jain has been acquitted of the charge

under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Food

Inspector visited the shop of the accused–respondent situated at

Fojka Badla, Dungarpur, where the accused was found dealing in

food articles including mustard oil. It is alleged that a sample of

mustard oil kept for sale was taken after compliance of requisite

formalities, divided into parts, sealed and sent for chemical

examination. Upon analysis, the Public Analyst reported the

sample to be adulterated, whereafter sanction for prosecution was

(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:51:33 AM)

(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:28:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19398] (2 of 4) [CRLA-589/1999]

obtained and a complaint came to be filed against the accused–

respondent for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act.

3. The learned trial court, after recording evidence of the

prosecution witnesses and considering the material available on

record, acquitted the accused–respondent vide judgment dated

30.06.1999, primarily holding that the prosecution failed to

establish compliance of essential procedural requirements and that

the sample taken could not be said to be a representative sample

of the commodity in question.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has

assailed the impugned judgment contending that the learned trial

court has erred both on facts and in law in acquitting the accused–

respondent despite sufficient material being available on record. It

is submitted that the prosecution has duly proved that the sample

taken was adulterated and the findings recorded by the learned

trial court are contrary to the evidence on record. It is, thus,

urged that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

5. None appears on behalf of the accused–respondent. This

Court has, therefore, proceeded to examine the matter on the

basis of material available on record.

6. Having gone through the impugned judgment and the

evidence available on record, this Court finds that the principal

reason which weighed with the learned trial court is the failure of

the prosecution to establish that the sample was taken in

accordance with the prescribed procedure so as to make it a

(Uploaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:51:33 AM)

(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:28:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:19398] (3 of 4) [CRLA-589/1999]

representative sample of the entire stock. A careful reading of the

material, particularly the discussion reflected in the latter part of

page 7 and the opening portion of page 8 of the trial court

judgment, clearly indicates that it has not been proved that the

mustard oil contained in the container was properly stirred or

homogenised before drawing the sample. The evidence of the

prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence on this aspect,

and there is no reliable material to demonstrate that the contents

were made uniform prior to sampling. The prosecution has merely

made general assertions regarding compliance of procedure, but

the same are not supported by cogent and convincing evidence. In

absence of such compliance, it cannot be said with certainty that

the sample drawn truly represented the entire quantity of the food

article kept for sale. This lapse goes to the root of the matter, as

the very foundation of prosecution