Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chunilal Dhirubhai Paghdar - M/S. ... on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1168 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHUNILAL DHIRUBHAI PAGHDAR - M/S. DIVYESH INDUSTRIES & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 02/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 4453/1993 on 03.01.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined offence punishable under Sections 7(1) and Section 16(1)(A) (E) of The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 The accused no. 3 - M/s. Divyesh Industries is the manufacturing firm and the accused no. 2 is the nominee of M/s. Divyesh Industries, Junagadh. The accused no. 1 is the partner who has given the sample and as per the case of the prosecution, on 02.12.1991 at around 17.00 hours, the complainant - Food Inspector - S.S. Patel went to the firm and took sample of Eagle Brand Double Filtered Pure Groundnut Oil and after giving the due intimation purchased 450 grams of oil. After the entire procedure, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Vadodara for analysis and as per the report of the Public Analyst, the sample did not conform to the standards and provisions laid Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh which was registered as Criminal Case No. 4453 of 1993. 2.2 The accused were duly served with the summons and after the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after the due procedure under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed. The evidence of the complainant was on record and the plea of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 37, 38 and 39 and all the accused denied the contents of the complainant.
2.3 The prosecution examined 2 witnesses and produced 29 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State. Though served, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 have not appeared either in person or through an advocate to make any submissions. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, this Court stated:
"While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court".
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 - Shailesh Somabhai Patel at Exh. 45 and the witness is the complainant who has produced the copy of the Gazette, wherein, he was appointed as a Food Inspector at Exh. 46. The witness has stated that on 02.12.1991, he had gone to Junagadh and Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined had taken the sample of Eagle Brand Double Filtered Pure Groundnut Oil from Divyesh Industries situated at Jai Bhavani Estate and the intimation in Form 6 was given which is produced at Exh. 47. Out of the 300 tins that were at the Estate, one tin was taken out and cleaned by a cloth and the label was taken out and 450 grams of oil was taken in a clean and dry vessel after bending the tin. The cost of the oil was Rs. 38/- per kilo and an amount of Rs. 17.10/- was paid to the accused no. 1 for the 450 grams of oil and the oil was put in three clean, dry and transparent glass bottles in equal quantities. The bottles were covered with wooden corks and the laq seal was affixed on the corks. The bottles were labeled and the office copy of the label is produced at Exh. 48 wherein the necessary details have also been mentioned. The receipt for the amount given for the oil is produced at Exh. 49 and the bill given by the accused is produced at Exh. 50. The gate pass of Divyesh Industries is produced at Exh. 51 and label on the tin is produced at Exh. 52. The witness has stated that the panchnama regarding the entire procedure was drawn in Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined the presence of the panch witness and the panchnama is produced at Exh. 54. On 03.12.1991, the witness had gone to the Commissioner's Office, Junagadh and the Local Health Authority was informed and one bottle was sent to the Public Analyst through helper - N. B. Purania. The Memorandum Form 17 is produced at Exh. 55 and the letter by which the sample and seal was sent is produced at Exh. 57. The remaining two parts of the sample were sent to the Local Health Authority by the letter produced at Exh. 57 and a receipt from the Public Analyst, Vadodara that the samples were received through N. B. Purania is produced at Exh. 58. After the report of the Public Analyst was received which is produced at Exh. 60, the letter produced at Exh. 62 was sent to the accused no. 3 demanding for the details and information was received from the Local Health Authority which is produced at Exh. 64. The license of the accused no. 3 is produced at Exh. 65 and the letter seeking permission to file the complaint, written by the complainant to the Local Health Authority is produced at Exh. 67. The permission to file the complaint was given by the Section Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined Officer, Health and Family Welfare Department which is produced at Exh. 69 and thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Junagadh. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that when he had gone to take the sample, the packing of loose groundnut oil into tins was being done and Food Inspector - N. B. Patel took the sample of loose groundnut oil and he had taken the sample of groundnut oil from the tin. The sample from the loose groundnut oil that was taken by Food Inspector - N. B. Patel was proper and legal and in the panchnama it is not mentioned that the tin in which the oil was packed was a used tin. If sesame oil is consumed, it is not harmful for human life and the sanction to file the complaint was given on 29.03.1993. The vessel in which the oil was taken was not cleaned on the spot and the bottles in which the samples of groundnut oil was filled were not cleaned on the spot. The bottles were sealed with wooden corks and no procedure was undertaken to see that the corks were free from any Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined traces of medicine. The samples were analyzed on 05.12.1991 but the report was signed on 13.12.1991 and from 31.01.1992 to 29.03.1993 there was no correspondence with the Local Health Authority regarding the sample. Ahat after 31.01.1992, he was aware that an offence under the Food Adulteration Act was made out but the permission to file the complaint was not given for a long time. The application for reanalysis of the sample was given on 12.08.1993 and the report of the reanalysis is produced at Exh. 79 which bears the signature of some person but does not bear the name of the person who has signed the same. The sample was received on 14.03.1995 and it was analyzed on 26.04.1995 and as per Rule 13(2)(D), the sample has to be analyzed within 30 days. The document at Exh. 79 which is the report of the CFL is dated 26.04.1995 and the sample was taken on 02.12.1991. There is no evidence to show that the vessel in which the sample was poured was taken from the office and in the panchnama it is not mentioned that the vessel was brought by the complainant. The procedure for making the container Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined airtight was not done as he did not have any machine for the same and the wooden corks were not cleaned on the place.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Jaman Naranbhai at Exh. 143 and the witness is the panch witness who has stated that his signature was taken on the panchnama but he does not know what was the panchnama about and has merely identified his signature on the panchnama produced at Exh. 54. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and during the cross examination nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution as per the complainant, he had visited the place of the accused on 02.12.1991 and the sample from the oil tin was taken. The complainant has produced all the documents to prove that the sample was taken in the proper manner but at this juncture it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined Rules, 1955 regarding the manner in which the samples have to be collected which reads as under:
14. Manner of sending sample for analysis.
Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed.
9.1 In the evidence that has emerged on record in the deposition of the complainant, the complainant has stated that he had taken the sample from the tin after cleaning the tin with a cloth and bending the tin, but there is no evidence as to whether the contents of the tin were made homogeneous and the vessel and the glass jars in which the samples were taken, were sterilized at the time of taking the sample and whether they were clean. Moreover, the complainant has stated that the glass jars were closed with wooden corks, but there is no evidence as to whether the bottles were closed, sufficiently tight to prevent leakage or evaporation, and whether they were made airtight. The learned Trial Court has discussed the manner in which the Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined sample was taken by the complainant and has concluded that there was a clear breach of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
The complainant has filed the complaint on 12.08.1993 and after taking the sample on 02.12.1991, the report of the Public Analyst which is produced at Exh. 60 was received on 16.12.1991, wherein, the report shows that the "Baudouin Test for tin oil was positive" and showed 35 R. Units, whereas, the maximum was 15 R. Units. Hence, on 16.12.1991, when the report of the Public Analyst was received, it was within the knowledge of the complainant that the sample does not confirm to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and that an offence under the Food Adulteration Act was made out but thereafter after a long gap of one year and eight months, the complaint has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh. There is no explanation regarding the huge delay and the learned Trial Court has discussed this aspect in detail. Moreover, the manner in which the sample was seized has Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined not been followed as per the law and the mandatory rules have not been followed in the sampling in taking of the sample.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra), the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1168/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh in Criminal Case No. 4453/1993 on 03.01.2011, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 01:03:12 IST 2025