[2026:RJ-JD:16550]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 364/1998 State of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Udai Singh son of Vagat Singh Rajput b/c Rajput r/o Bhawrana Tehsil Salumber Distt. Udaipur. (Raj.)

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, Dy.G.A.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

09/04/2026

1. The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 06.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur, whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

2. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on

13.10.1987, the Food Inspector, Ram Sevak Gupta, took a sample of groundnut oil from the shop of the respondent. As per the prosecution case, upon examination by the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated, and consequently, a complaint under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 came to be filed.

3. The accused appeared before the trial court, and the substance of accusation was explained to him. Thereafter, the prosecution examined four witnesses in support of its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied the allegations and claimed innocence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the accused; hence, the present appeal.

4. I have heard Shri N.S. Chandawat, learned counsel for the appellant–State, and Shri Anil Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. After anxious consideration of the submissions advanced and upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the sanction in the present case was granted by the competent authority without due application of mind. A bare perusal of Exhibit P-9 reveals that it is a printed format on which only the word “Seen” has been appended, on the basis of which the complaint came to be filed.

6. The grant of sanction for prosecution is not an empty formality; rather, it is incumbent upon the competent authority to examine the contents of the complaint along with the material placed on record, apply its independent mind, and thereafter determine whether sanction for prosecution ought to be accorded. The casual and mechanical manner in which the sanction has been granted in the present case cannot be appreciated.

7. In this view of the matter, this Court finds that the learned trial Judge has not committed any error in deciding this crucial issue in favour of the accused-respondent. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal so as to warrant interference with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the trial court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

8. Among other grounds, it has been contended that the sample was not taken in accordance with the statutory provisions and the prescribed rules. It has specifically been urged that the sample was not drawn after making the contents homogeneous, which was imperative for PW-1, Ram Sevak Gupta.

9. The plea of the respondent that he had procured the tin of groundnut oil from another source also carries substance, as no effort has been made by the prosecution to bring on record the factual position as to from where the respondent had obtained the said tin. In the absence of any specific evidence to show that the groundnut oil was prepared by the accused-respondent or that it was kept in his shop for the purpose of sale by him, and such oil is found to be adulterated, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt.

10. Otherwise also, it is a well-nigh settled principle of law that in cases of acquittal, the appellate court should be slow and circumspect in interfering, unless it is demonstrated that the finding of acquittal is contrary to law or is the result of total non-consideration of the material available on record. No such infirmity is