Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1198 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Rana Harivadan Shanabhai

2025-10-06

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.4109 of 1993 on 28.07.2021, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent- accused from the offences punishable under Sections 2 (ia)(a)(b)(c), 7(i), 7(v) and 16(1)(i-a)(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PFA Act’) and Rule-29 of the FOOD ADULTERATION RULES , 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “FA Rules”). 1.1. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the rank and file 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 18-08-1993, at around 10.15 am, Punamchand Revabhai Panchal, Food Inspector, Vadodara, went to “Tulja Provision Store” situated in Marcha Gali, at Padra, and found the accused no.1 Harivadhan Shanabhai Rana present at the shop. After giving the notice of taking a sample, he found that in one tin box, 4 kg of loose turmeric powder was kept for selling, and in the presence of a panch witness, purchased 600 gms of loose turmeric powder for Rs.15/- which was measured by the accused no.1 with a spoon and placed on a clean paper, and the 600 gms of turmeric powder was divided equally in three portions and placed in three clean, dry, moistureless, odourless bottles, and sealed and sent to the Public Analyst, Vadodara. It was found that the accused no.2 was the owner of “Tulja Provision Store” and after the report of the Public Analyst was received, it was found that the sample had pink, orange and yellow soluble coal tar colours detected, and the sample revealed the presence of characteristic debris of turmeric, mixed with plenty of rice starch, and the sample did not conform to the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of FOOD ADULTERATION RULES , 1955. The remaining 2 samples were sent to the Local Health Authority as per rules, and the Local Health Authority gave the notice to the accused, and after the sanction for filing of the complaint was received, the complaint was filed by the complainant Punamchand Revabhai Panchal before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padra, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 4109 of 1993. 2.2. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 2 07 of the Code. As the case was a private warrant triable case, the complainant Punamchand Revabhai Panchal stepped into the witness box and deposed on oath at Exh.1 and produced the documentary evidences at Exh.15 to Exh.44. Considering the evidence on record, a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.54 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.55 and Exh.56 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.3. During pendency of the trial, the accused no. 2-Naranbhai Durabhai Rana had expired and his death certificate was produced at Exh.98, and accordingly, the case qua the accused no.2 came to be disposed of as abated. 2.4. After the evidence of the complainant was closed, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein in the accused no. 1 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 no.1. 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 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. 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, 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.M.D.Modi for the respondents – 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 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. 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. M.D. Modi for the respondent no.1 – 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. Learned advocate Mr. Modi has relied upon the judgment of this court, in Jagdish Chattaram Mulvani v. State of Gujarat , 2010-0 GLHEL-HC 227670 , wherein, this court has held that according to the Food Inspector, the sample bottles were cleaned in his office with the help of Nirma powder and the utensils were also cleaned in his office and he has admitted in his evidence that the bottles and utensils were not cleaned at the place from where the sample was lifted, and hence, the mandatory requirements laid down under Rule-14, cannot be said to have been duly and fully complied with. Moreover, the Food Inspector in his evidence nowhere stated as to who cleaned the bottles and utensils in his office and when were the same cleaned. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr. Modi for the accused has relied upon the decision in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mutilal Dubal and others in Criminal Appeal No. 704 of 1996, wherein in Para 11, this court has observed as under: “ 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it becomes evidence that the prosecution has not provbed by leading any positive evidence beyond doubt that the spoon employed for collecting the food samp0le and the glass bottles were properly cleaned, dried before collecting food sample in question. As the prosecution has failed in proving beyond doubt, the absolute complaince with mandatory provisions of Rule-14 of the Rules, the order of acquittal dated 23-05-1996 passed by the learned JMFC, Jamnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 1241 of 1988 does not call for any interference." 6.2. In the case of State of Gujarat through Bhagubhai Shivabhai Prajapati Vs. Dhanjibhai Kakubhai Dattani in Criminal Misc. In the case of State of Gujarat through Bhagubhai Shivabhai Prajapati Vs. Dhanjibhai Kakubhai Dattani in Criminal Misc. Application (for Leave to Appeal) No. 18510 of 2015 , this court has observed that the fact when the bottles were not cleaned on the spot, and the fact that the two evidences above were discrepant, and the fact that the container was not cleaned on the spot, remains unchallenged in the court below, and this court could not interfere in such a case under Section - 378 of the Cr.P.C. 6.3. In the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation through Vimal B. Chauhan Vs. Parulben Dharmendrabhai Dataniya in Criminal Appeal No. 1424 of 2011 , this Court has, in Para-7, observed as under: “7. However, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has successfully demnostrated the breach of rules – 14 and 16(d) of the P.F.A. Ruls inasmuch as the Food Inspector does not bear testimony to the fact that the vessel in which he collected the sample was clearned on the spot. The fact that the vessel in which the sample was collected must be clearned on the spot has been reiterated in plethora of decisions few of them being State of Gujarat Vs. M/s. Harkhachand Dahyubhai (Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 1990) decided on 16.11.2000, State of Gujarat Vs. Jitendrakumar Natvarlal Patel (Criminal Appeal No. 3156 of 2008) decided on 20.02.2018, State of Gujarat through SS Patel, Food Inspector Vs. Shyamal Tolaram Kourani (Criminal Misc. Application No. 16203 of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 3036 of 2008) decided on 13.05.2009 and accused has been given benefit of doubt on that count.” 6.4. Learned advocate Mr. Modi for the respondent-accused, while relying on these judgments, has submitted that in the instant case also, it is on record that the spoon, by which, the sample was taken was not cleaned on the spot, and there is no evidence that the bottles, in which, the samples were taken were cleaned on the spot, and the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and no interference is required, and hence the appeal must be rejected. 7. 7. 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 learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or 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 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. 8. On appreciation of the evidence on record of the learned Trial Court, the Food Inspector Punamchand Revabhai Panchal has been examined at Exh.14 and he has narrated the entire procedure that was undertaken by him at the time of taking of a sample, and thereafter, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that there were many shops near “Tulja Provision Store” and the kit for the sample was placed in his cupboard and it was taken in the month of August. Ordinarily, the month of August falls in the monsoon season, when the moisture content and humidity in the atmosphere are very high, and at the time when he collected the sample, it was raining. At the time of taking the sample, the accused no.2 was not in the shop, and he did not record the statement of any customers in the shop. At the time of taking the sample, the accused no.2 was not in the shop, and he did not record the statement of any customers in the shop. At the time of taking the sample, the accused no.1 had stated that he has nothing to do with the shop, but he was merely sitting in the shop as he was the cousin brother of the accused no.2 and the accused no. 2 had asked him to sit in the shop as he had gone for some work. In the complaint, it not mentioned that the accused no.1 was, in fact, selling products in the shop. He did not take the license or any other documents of the firm from the accused, and it was not mentioned in the panchnama that any documents have been taken from the accused no.1. The remaining turmeric powder was not seized, and he did not inquire from the accused as to where was the turmeric powder purchased from, and no bill was demanded from the accused no.1. Moreover, he has not stated as to how, and when were the bottles used to store the samples cleaned. Before taking the sample, the covers of the bottles were kept away from the bottles and he has to use the utensils given by the office for taking the sample. Moreover, in the report of the Public Analyst, the amount of food colours found in the sample and the percentage of rice starch found in the sample is not mentioned. Before taking the sample, the covers of the bottles were kept away from the bottles and he has to use the utensils given by the office for taking the sample. Moreover, in the report of the Public Analyst, the amount of food colours found in the sample and the percentage of rice starch found in the sample is not mentioned. The complainant has produced the copy of the Gazette at Exh.15, the Form-VI, by which, intimation was given to the accused at Exh.16, the bill, the cash memo receipt of the amount paid at Exh.17, the receipt at Exh.18, the panchnama at Exh.19, Form-7 at Exh.20, the covering letter, by which, the two parts of the sample were sent to the Local Health Authority at Exh.21, the letter, by which, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst at Exh.22, the report of the Public Analyst at Exh.25, license of “Tulja Provision Store” at Exh.30, notice of the Local Health Authority to the accused at Exh.31, reply given by the accused no.2 at Exh.33, wherein, it is stated that at the time of taking the sample he had gone to Vadodara to purchase goods and his cousin i.e. the accsued no.1 was merely sitting in the shop, but he is not a partner and has nothing to do with the shop, the license sent by the accused no.2 at Exh.34, the registration of the shop under the Shopts and Establishment Act at Exh.35, letter sent to the Local Health Authority seeking permission to file the complaint at Exh.37, and the sanction given to file the complaint at Exh.39 and also the notices sent by the Local Health Authority to the accused under section 13(2) for getting the samples reexamined by the Central Food Laboratory and the R.P.A.D. slips at Exhs.41 to 44 respectively. 8.1. The prosecution has also examined PW-2 Naginbhai, Ranchhodbhai Kachhiya at Exh.100 and the witness is the panch witness, in whose presence, as per the case of the prosecution, the sample was taken by the Food Inspector. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 9. 8.1. The prosecution has also examined PW-2 Naginbhai, Ranchhodbhai Kachhiya at Exh.100 and the witness is the panch witness, in whose presence, as per the case of the prosecution, the sample was taken by the Food Inspector. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 9. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has emerged on record that the sample of turmeric powder was taken by the Food Inspector on 18-08-1993 at around 10.15am, but there is no iota of evidence that the procedure under Rule-14 was properly followed. It is settled law that the prosecution should adduce positive evidence that the bottles were cleaned and made dry and odourless by the Food Inspector himself or under his supervision and the same must also be done at the spot, but there is no evidence that the bottles were made clean, dry, odourless and moistureless at the spot. The Food Inspector has moreover stated that the sample was weighed by the accused no.1 and he had weighed the same with a person and placed the turmeric on a paper, and thereafter it was placed in the jars, but, there is also evidence that at the time of taking the sample, it was raining and the humidity and moisture content in the atmosphere was very high. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that the sample was stirred properly and made homogeneous and it was the representative of the entire contents and that prior to taking the sample, it was properly mixed so that the sample had attained homogeneity. The learned Trial Court has considered all the decisions relied upon by the accused and as there was a breach of the mandatory provisions has passed the impugned judgment in order of acquittal. 10. In view of the above, in light of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Jagdish Chattaram Mulvani (Supra), State of Gujarat Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mutilal Dubal (Supra), State of Gujarat through Bhagubhai Shivabhai Prajapati (Supra) and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation through Vimal B. Chauhan (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. Jitendra Kumar Mutilal Dubal (Supra), State of Gujarat through Bhagubhai Shivabhai Prajapati (Supra) and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation through Vimal B. Chauhan (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. 11. The impugned judgment and the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padra in Criminal Case No.4109 of 1993 on 28.07.2021 is hereby confirmed. 12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.