Delhi High Court - Orders
Food Inspector vs Kailash Chand on 15 October, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 669/2016
FOOD INSPECTOR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State
versus
KAILASH CHAND .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 15.10.2025
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 28.09.2013 passed by the learned ACMM-II, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in CC No. 150/2004 arising out of complaint filed for violation of Section 2(ia)(j) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("PFA Act"), and violation of Rule 23 read with Rules 28 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ("PFA Rules") punishable under Section 16 (1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 20.02.2004, Food Inspector N. N. Sharma purchased approximately 1500 grams of arhar dal from an open tin at the shop of the respondent, which was divided into three parts, sealed, and sent for analysis. One part was sent to the Public Analyst, Delhi, who opined vide report (Ex. PW-1/G) that the sample was adulterated as it was coloured with synthetic colouring matter "Tartrazine". The second part was sent to the Central Food Laboratory ("CFL") for analysis, on an This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/10/2025 at 22:11:32 application moved by the respondent, and the CFL opined vide report/certificate dated 27.09.2004 that the sample did not conform to the standards of split pulse (Dal) Arhar as per the PFA Rules. Charges were consequently framed against the respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined Food Inspector N. N. Sharma as PW-1, the then SDM Dharam Pal as PW-2, and Field Assistant J. P. Bhardwaj as PW-
3. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondent claimed to be innocent, and while he opted to lead evidence in his defence, he did not examine any witnesses.
4. The learned APP for the State has contended that the Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent on technical grounds, despite both the reports in question establishing adulteration. It was argued that mere variation in the two reports should not nullify the prosecution case when the fact of adulteration is otherwise evident.
5. The Trial Court noted in the impugned judgment of acquittal that there were discrepancies in the testimonies of the three prosecution witnesses as to whether the jhaba used for mixing and taking of the samples from the respondent's shop was clean and dry. While PW-1 deposed that the jhaba was already clean and dry and was not again made clean and dry by them before taking of the samples, PW-2 stated that the jhaba was made clean in his presence using a piece of cloth. PW-3 stated in his cross- examination that the jhaba was not cleaned again as it was already clean and dry. The Trial Court noted that, in the circumstances of the present case, where the respondent had raised a plea that the jhaba used for collection of samples was not clean and dry, the prosecution was required to lead positive This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/10/2025 at 22:11:32 evidence to rule out the possibility that the jhaba had introduced contamination by way of colouring material, and the same had become doubtful on account of the contradicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
6. Further, it had come out during trial that the respondent was selling various food items at his shop and only one jhaba was available at the vendor at the time of sampling. The Trial Court accordingly held that it was possible that the jhaba was contaminated by other food articles or colouring matter, and the contention of the respondent regarding a clean and dry jhaba not being used for collection of samples had been substantiated.
7. The Trial Court also noted that the analysis done by the Public Analyst as well as the one done by the CFL had applied the "paper chromatography" method for detection of artificial colouring in the arhar dal. Relying upon the decision in State Vs. Subhash1, the Court held that the paper chromatography test was not sufficient to conclude as to whether permitted or unpermitted colouring material had been used.
8. A substantial doubt about the homogeneity and representativeness of the sample has been raised, which vitiates the reliability of the subsequent analytical process itself. The prosecution also failed to lead convincing evidence to exclude the possibility of contamination due to an unclean jhaba. The admitted use of a single jhaba for various commodities at the shop, coupled with contradictory depositions on its cleaning, makes the prosecution case doubtful.
9. The absence of any independent witness during sampling, though not fatal in every case, assumes importance here given the other infirmities and This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/10/2025 at 22:11:32 contradictions in the prosecution case.
10. On a perusal of the entire record, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court was justified in extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent. The Trial Court's view is a possible and reasonable one on the basis of the evidence on record.
11. The law is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court must be slow to interfere unless the findings of the Trial Court are perverse or manifestly erroneous. The principle of double presumption of innocence enuring in favour of an accused after acquittal stands firmly established in Ravi Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported as (2022) 8 SCC 536, and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., reported as (2020) 10 SCC 166.
12. It is clear that the presumption of innocence operating in favour of the respondent in the present appeal cannot be displaced unless the Trial Court's findings are found to be wholly perverse and unsustainable.
13. Considering the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find the present matter to be a fit case for interference with the decision of the Trial Court. The acquittal of the respondent is accordingly upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.
14. The bonds furnished by the respondent stand cancelled and his sureties are discharged.
15. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the Trial Court.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J OCTOBER 15, 2025/nb 1 2012 (2) JCC 1052 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/10/2025 at 22:11:32