Officer Didn’t Clean Bottle Before Taking Samples: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Man Accused Of Selling Kaju Katli Coated With Aluminium Foil

The High Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the Appellate Court acquitting the respondents – accused.

The Single Bench of Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak held, “It appears that the report of the Public Analyst confirms that the aluminium foil was found on kaju katri collected from the shop of the respondents then, the important question arises whether this aluminium foil found on the article i.e. kaju katri is hazardous to the health of people; whether the article found to be coated with the aluminium foil and in absence of any evidence on record to the effect that aluminium foil is injurious to health and is unfit for human consumption, the mere use of such foil for coating kaju katri would not make that article of food adulterated. Such principle has been consistently laid down and reiterated by this Court in the aforesaid decisions.”

“In the present case, a positive evidence has been recorded by the trial court that the officer has in clear terms stated that he has not cleaned the bottle before taking samples. In view of that, I am in complete agreement with the impugned judgment and order passed by the appellate Court, more particularly, the reasoning given by the appellate Court in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment and order with regard to the compliance of the provisions of Rule 14 framed under the Act. It appears that the appellate Court has specifically observed that the learned trial Court failed to consider this submission and the mandatory provision of Rule 14 and therefore, in light of the decision of this Court, the appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned order of acquittal. Even with regard to the food article - Kaju katri which was found coated with the aluminium foil, the appellate court has considered the decisions of this Court as well as of other High Courts which is referred and relied upon in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the impugned order and after considering the same, the appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned order of acquittal.”

Additional Public Prosecutor Jirga Jhaveri represented the Appellant while Advocate Ashok A Purohit represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case dates back to the year 1995, when the complainant, while discharging his duties as a Food Inspector, had visited the place of the respondent running under the name and style of M/S. Bharat Sweets purchased a muddamal sample of "Kajukatri" (silver foiled) in the presence of panch witnesses, paying Rs 96. He sent the same to the Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis. The Public Analyst arrived at the conclusion that material which was purchased by the complainant-Food Inspector was not in accordance with the provisions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. On receipt of report from Public Analyst, the Food Inspector obtained permission to prosecute against respondents and after receiving sanction from competent authority, a complaint was filed with a proposal to try the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under sec.2(1-A) (A), 2(1-A) (C), and 2(1-A) (M) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vyara had taken cognisance of the offence and issued process against the accused persons. The respondents appeared before the Trial Court, and applied for reanalysis of muddamal "Kajukatri" (silver-foiled) by the Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad. After the Central Food Laboratory found the sample to be substandard, a charge sheet was filed against the respondents. The Magistrate, after hearing parties from both sides and considering the evidence on record, convicted the respondents and ordered them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years. The Appellate Court acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the records of the case, the Bench noted that the report of the Public Analyst confirmed that aluminium foil was found on kaju katri collected from the shop of the respondents. The Bench found that positive evidence was recorded by the Trial Court that the officer had clearly stated that he had not cleaned the bottle before taking samples.

Coming to the aspect that Kaju katri was found coated with the aluminium foil, the Bench noted that the appellate court had rightly passed the impugned order of acquittal.

The Bench also explained, “Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged.”

The Bench thus came to the conclusion that there was no credible evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime, and the evidence on record was not so convincing as to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the alleged crime. “Even on reappreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt”, it held while dismissing the appeal.

Cause Title: State of Gujarat v. Chimanbhai Bhanubhai Chaudhari & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:40381)

Click here to read/download Order