Bottles For Sample Collection Not Cleaned On Spot: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal For Alleged Offences Under Food Adulteration Act
The Gujarat High Court recently upheld the acquittal of a general store owner, who was booked under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, after noticing that the mandatory provisions relating to cleanliness of bottles in which the samples were collected, were not followed.Justice Ashokkumar Joshi observed that the Food Safety Officer himself admitted that the captioned bottles were not...
The Gujarat High Court recently upheld the acquittal of a general store owner, who was booked under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, after noticing that the mandatory provisions relating to cleanliness of bottles in which the samples were collected, were not followed.
Justice Ashokkumar Joshi observed that the Food Safety Officer himself admitted that the captioned bottles were not clean at the place of collecting the sample. He had also admitted that the covers of the bottles were not cleaned at the time. It said,
"This Court is of the view that though the complainant had explained all the formalities for collecting the samples but, so longer as the mandatory provisions are concerned for cleanliness of bottles and also cleanliness of the cover is concerned, same is not proved. On the contrary admitted that the same is not cleaned and therefore...this Court is of the opinion that (trial) Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the respondent, which learned APP has failed to dislodge them."
The brief facts of the case were that the Food Inspector, upon collecting a sample of Black pepper (whole) from the Accused's store found that there was mineral oil in the sample and the same was prohibited under Rule 44(AAA). Accordingly, the Accused was booked for offences under the Food Adulteration Act. However, later he was acquitted by the trial court which was challenged by the State in the instant criminal appeal.
The trial court had concluded that the Accused had followed all mandatory rules under the Act and that there was no breach of provision or violation of any rules. However, the State insisted that the trial court had not evaluated the oral evidence adduced by the Prosecution.
Per contra, the Accused argued that the Food Safety Officer had admitted that the captioned three bottled of the sample were not cleaned and therefore, there was a violation of the provisions of the Act. He also admitted that the said bottles had earlier contained groundnut oil and these were not cleaned before collecting the sample of the Black Pepper. Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused.
The High Court referred to the scope of interference in acquittal appeals and opined that the Court must remember that prejudice lies in favour of the Accused in acquittal appeals. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible basis the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not reverse the acquittal of the Accused unless there is some manifest illegality or perversity in the judgement. To bolster this view, the Single Judge relied on Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 752 and other precedents.
The Bench then emphasised that the sample bottles were not cleaned before collecting the sample even though it was mandated in the Act. The Court also pointed to the cross examination of the law officer where she stated that she had not taken the sample and she did not know the aspect of the complaint or the issue of collecting the samples.
Keeping this in view, the criminal appeal was dismissed.
Case No.: R/CR.A/1275/2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 243
Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT v/s NIMESHBHAI VITTHALBHAI GANDHI