Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat - Through A K Kher - ... vs Dineshkumar Natvarlal Chhag on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1634 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT - THROUGH A K KHER - SENIOR FOOD INSPECTOR
Versus
DINESHKUMAR NATVARLAL CHHAG
========================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant No. 1
MR. SOEB R. BHOHARIA(2205) for the Opponent/Respondent No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent/Respondent No. 1
VALIMOHAMMED PATHAN(6383) for the Opponent/Respondent No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kodinar (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 543 of 2000 on Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined 28.12.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent - accused from the offences punishable under Sections 7(i), 7(v) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 1.1. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. On 03.02.2000, the complainant Arjunbhai Kesarbhai Kher, visited Hari Dugdalay, situated in Trikamrai Chowk area, Kodinar, with panch witness Jivabhai Bhayabhai Jadhav. The accused was present at the shop, and after the complainant introduced himself, he found that the accused was selling milk and milk products, and found three packed tins of ghee of 15 kgs each, and around 10 kilos of ghee in an open tin. After the notice, as per Form-VI was given, the complainant purchased 500 grams of ghee, after stirring the ghee that was in the open Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined tin, and took it in a clean and dry steel utensil, and paid the amount of Rs.60/- to the accused. The ghee was placed in three transparent, clean, dry bottles in equal parts, and the bottles were properly sealed, and as per the procedure, a sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Junagadh, and the remaining two samples were sent to the Local Health Authority. The report of the Public Analyst was received, which showed that the sample of ghee did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, and after the due procedure, the Local Health Authority informed the accused and gave a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and after the sanction was received, a complaint was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kodinar, under Section 2(i-a),(a), (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and Rule 50, and Section 7(1), (5), and Rule-16 of the Act. 2.2. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copy of the complaint was provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. As the Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined case was a private warrant triable case, the complainant Arjunbhai Kesarbhai Kher stepped into the witness box and deposed on oath at Exh.24 and produced the documentary evidences from Exh.24 to Exh.42. Considering the evidence on record, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.48 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.49, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.3. After the evidence of the complainant was closed, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence on record. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, was pleased to acquit the accused.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of natural justice. The learned Trial Court has erred in evaluating the evidence on record of the case and without appreciating the evidence in its real perspective, acquitted the accused. There are direct and indirect evidence connecting the respondent with the crime which are produced in the Court and in spite of the fact, the learned Trial Court, without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, straight way arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Apex Court which are applicable to the facts of the present case and the impugned judgment and order is perverse and suffering from legal and factual error apparent on the record. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses which was fully supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is without giving any cogent and convincing reasons, illegal, Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined invalid and improper, and therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant -
State and learned advocate Mr.Soeb Bhoharia for the respondent - accused. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions, not Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Soeb Bhoharia for the respondent - original accused has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal.
7. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observa- tions of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 : Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined AIR 2006 SC 831, 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". (emphasis supplied) ........ 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, reappreci-
ate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limita-
tion, 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 com-
pelling 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 ac- quittal. 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 pre- sumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined 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.
8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
9. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence is re-appreciated and PW-1 Arjunbhai Keshavbhai Kher, the Food Inspector, has deposed on oath in detail at Exh.24, and has produced all the necessary documents on record. The Food Inspector has stated that the ghee was stirred by the same spoon that was in the tin, and it was taken into a steel vessel, and thereafter, placed in the three bottles. In the cross-examination, the Food Inspector has admitted that he had gone at around 11:00 a.m. and was at the shop for about two to two and a half hours. He cannot say whether the cover of the bottle was made of rubber or wood, but it was of a specific material, which was lying in his office cupboard. He could not say how long the cover was lying and he did not remember Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined when was the cover given to him. There is a register of the material maintained in his office and the procedure of taking the sample was done by the helper as per his instructions. The seals on the samples were also placed by the helper as per his instructions, and there were a number of shops near the shop of the accused. He cannot say what were the boards and on those shop he did not purchase the vessel in which the ghee was taken. There was no evidence that the steel vessel was given from the office and he did not take a bill from the accused. As per the report of the Public Analyst, besides the presence of turmeric detected, there were no other adulteration, and turmeric was an edible product and not harmful to the human body. The report was sent by the Public Analyst to his office, and the helper that works as a peon in the office was taken along as a helper. In the entire procedure, he has not mentioned that the helper or the peon was with him, and as a Food Inspector, he has to take certain samples during the month. He cannot say as to when the materials for taking the sample were taken from the office, and the panch witness Jivabhai Jadhav was also the complainant, and on the basis of his complaint, he had come to Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Kodinar to take the sample. He had begun the procedure of taking the sample after Jivabhai Jadhav had come to the spot, and in Form No.VI, it is not mentioned as to from whom the sample was taken. The document at Exh.28 does not bear his signature, and for taking the sample, the entire procedure has to be done by the Food Inspector and the sample too has to be packed by the Food Inspector. The sample has to be sealed by the Food Inspector, but in this case, the entire procedure of taking of the sample and sealing was done by the peon. The three parts were not weighed and divided equally and when he went to take the sample, the vessel and the bottles were not cleaned in the presence of the accused. The label to be affixed on the bottle was brought by him from the office and the sample and the procedure for sending the sample to the Public Analyst was done on the next day of taking the sample. In the label produced at Exh.29, the name of the distributor is not mentioned, and the code number in the forwarding letter and sample number is different. He cannot say as to whether the Local Health Authority had considered the documents prior to giving the sanction and he did not add any preservative in the Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined sample. If ghee is kept for a long time, the properties would change, and as per the report of the Public Analyst, six tests were done, out of which, only in one, the result was turmeric detected, and the remaining five tests were proper. Besides the Food Inspector, no other witness has been examined, and the closing pursis was filed by the complainant at Exh.53.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the evidence the sample was taken on 03.02.2000 and the report of the Public Analyst is dated 21.02.2000, the complaint has been filed by the complainant on 08.09.2000 and the complaint has been filed after a delay of more than seven months, but there is no explanation for the delay in filing of the complaint. After the complaint was filed, the accused had appeared before the learned Trial Court and had given an application for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory and accordingly the sample was sent, and the report of the Central Food Laboratory is produced at Exh.70. As per the Central Food Laboratory report at Exh.70, the test for turmeric was positive, but the other parameters are shown to be different Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined from the report of the Public Analyst. On appreciation of the evidence, as per the case of the complainant, the procedure of taking the sample, sealing the bottles, and placing the samples was done by the helper, but the helper has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, the entire procedure was done in the presence of one Jivabai Bhayabai Jadhav, who was the complainant, who had filed the application, and on the basis of that application, the Food Inspector had gone to Kodinar and visited the shop of the accused, and only after he arrived at the shop, the procedure of taking the sample was done, but the said Jivabai Bhayabai Jadhav has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. As far as the method of taking the sample is concerned, there is no evidence that the entire contents of the tin was stirred properly, so as to make the sample homogeneous and representative, and it is also on record that the bottles and utensils were not cleaned at the place from where the sample was taken by the complainant. In the evidence of the complainant, it is on record that the sample was taken in a steel utensil, but the complainant did not know from where the steel utensil was brought, and even the spoon that was used to stir the Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined ghee belonged to the accused. Moreover, as there is no evidence as to when the bottles and utensils were cleaned, the mandatory requirements laid down under Rule-14 cannot be said to have been duly complied with. There is no explanation for the delay in launching the prosecution and it is on record that the complainant did not add any preservative to the sample. The sample was taken on 21.02.2000 and the complaint was filed on 28-09-2000, and it was examined at the Central Food Laboratory on 16-10-2000, that is more than eight months, after the sample was taken.
10.1. The complainant has categorically stated that the taking of the sample, sealing of the bottles, and sealing of the samples were done by the helper/peon, but he has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. This Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Shaileshbhai Mansukhlal Shah reported in 2024 (0) Supreme (Gujarat) 998, has held that when the bottles, which were used for collection of sample, were not properly sealed, and there is no evidence with regard to the sealing of the bottles, and the provisions of Rule-14 were not Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined scrupulously followed by the Food Inspector while collecting the sample, the accused is required to be acquitted. 10.2. In the cases of State of Gujarat Vs. Kaushikbhai Ambalal Patel in Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 2002 and State of Gujarat Vs. Kanubhai Keshavlal Patel in Criminal Appeal No.996 of 2004, this court has held that when there was no positive evidence on record with regard to the cleaning of the vessels on the spot and the utensil, in which, the sample was taken, as well as the bottles, in which the sample was placed, were not cleaned at the spot, the mandatory provisions of Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rule had not been complied with and the accused is entitled to an acquittal.
11. In view of the above settled provisions of law, 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 Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1634/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined 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.
12. The impugned judgment and the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kodinar in Criminal Case No.543 of 2000 on 28.12.2011 is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 01:24:44 IST 2025