R/CR.A/23/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 23 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No √ ========================================== STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. Versus PATEL ASHOK KALIDAS & ANR. ========================================== Appearance: MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MD MODI(1318) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 10/08/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr.Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.M. D. Modi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.05.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anand (hereinafter be referred to “the Arst Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2014 whereby R/CR.A/23/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2026 the judgment and order of conviction dated 01.01.2014 passed by the learned 9th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Criminal Case No.2978 of 2005 whereby accused No.1 being distributor was ordered to convict for the oFence punishable under the provisions of the breach of Rule 32(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules [hereinafter be referred to as “the PFA Rules”] and under Sections 2(9)(e) 7(ii) and 7(v) and 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(a)(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act [hereinafter be referred to as “the PFA Act”] and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay Ane of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of Ane and accused No.2 being manufacturer was ordered to pay Ane of Rs.5,000/- and in default of Ane, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, was quashed and set aside and acquitted the accused for the alleged oFence. 3. The facts of the present case are that the complainant i.e. Food Inspector Shri N. V. Mehta was on duty on 25.01.2015 at Anand and at about 5:00 pm, he visited the production unit No.2 and shown the pouch of Amul Shakti pasteurized milk of 500 ml and he disclosed his intention that he wanted to analysis the sample and he purchased three pouches of 500 ml each after paying of Rs.24/-. After completing the formalities as laid down under the PFA Rules, he prepared the sample for sending to the Public Analyst at Vadodara and on receipt of the report from the Public Analyst Laboratory, it was alleged that at the time of examination, the Public Analyst opined that the milk was packed on 25.01.2005, however, the print contained on the pouch was 26.01.2005 and, therefore, he found the sample was mis-branded. It is alleged that the Food Inspector has sought permission from the competent authority and the concerned authorized oMcer has accorded the sanction in favour of the R/CR.A/23/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2026 complainant for initiation of the proceedings against the accused. The respondent No.1 being authorized oMcer under whose supervision the manufacturing activity was going on in respondent No.2 company. After adding 40 – 40 drops formalin in each pouch and again it was sealed and sent to the Public Analyst and two samples were sent to the Local Health Authorities. The Public Analyst report contained the opinion which reads as under:- “The sample Pasteurized Standardized Milk (Amul Shakti) is Misbranded under section 2(ix)(e) of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.” The requisite sanction was obtained from the competent authority, who accorded the sanction on 03.02.2005 and complaint came to be lodged. 4. After going through the evidence led by the complainant at Exhibit 7 and evidence of P.W.2 panch witness at Exhibit 42, the trial Court passed the order of conviction against the accused. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the respondents – accused have preferred criminal appeal before the Arst Appellate Court. The Arst Appellate Court, after examining the documentary evidence produced before the trial Court and perusing the evidence and reasons recorded by the trial Court, has allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment and order of conviction. That the Arst Appellate Court, while recording the reasons, found that the sanctioning authority has accorded the sanction on the basis of the Public Analyst’s report without verifying other documents and, therefore, the sanction accorded by the concerned authority itself is bad in law. The Arst Appellate Court has observed that while R/CR.A/23/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2026 according sanction, the concerned authority had mentioned the name of the cooperative as “Kheda Cooperative Milk Produce Union Limited”, whereas, in the order it was mentioned as “Kheda Jilla Dudh Udpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited” which was subsequently corrected and the corrected copy was not produced before the Court below. It is worthwhile to refer to Rule 32(f) of the PFA Rules, which reads as under:- “Rule 32. Package of food to carry a label:- Every package of food shall carry a label and unless otherwise provided in these rules, there shall be speciAed on every label:- (f) the month and year in which the commodity is manufactured or prepacked.” 6. The label containing the manufacturing date and year is to be mentioned if the shelf life span of such product is short in nature. In the present case, it is a sample of milk wherein the sample was taken on 25.01.2005, whereas, the date contained on the pouch was 26.01.2005 and other samples of diFerent date is also not come on record and in absence of breach as mentioned in the above referred provisions, the conviction cannot be recorded and, therefore, after considering the facts of the case and the submissions, the Arst Appellate Court has rightly quashed and set aside the order of conviction. 7. Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the reasoning with regard to the Public Analyst and the sanction accorded by the concerned authority is not a valid ground for recording the acquittal. He has submitted that the sanction was accorded by the sanctioning authority has referred only the Public R/CR.A/23/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2026 Analyst’s report and not examined other papers and in report also, there was some typographical error in the name of respondent No.2 for which subsequent correction was made, but it was not produced on record and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly recorded the conviction against the accused as sample of milk more particularly packing date and year is incorrectly mentioned on the same. He has submitted that the complainant visited the place and the pouch which purchased for the purpose of analysis containing the date of 26.01.2005 for which respondents – accused have submitted their explanation that 26.01.2005 was a public holiday and on that day, the oMce remained closed and, therefore, the stamp of 26th was made on the pouch which fact was not properly appreciated by the trial Court while recording the conviction against the accused. He has also not controverted the fact that the food article in question was pasteurized standardized milk and the adulteration was not found in the sample but only misbrand of the sample was alleged against the accused for which the trial Court has rightly recorded the conviction against the accused and without considering relevant facts, the Arst Appellate Court has wrongly reversed the Andings recorded by the trial Court. He has submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Mr.Modi, learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and submitted that the Arst Appellate Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order and hence, the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, Mr.Modi, learned counsel for the accused has referred and relied upon the following decisions:- R/CR.A/23/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2026 (1) State of Orissa Vs. Ravindra Sadhu, 2006 (1) FSL 200; (2) Ramanbhai Ambalal Patel Vs. Hina Industries, 1993 (1) GLR 820; (3) Union Territory Vs. Lachhamandas, 2009 (1) FAC 287; (4) Ketan K. Mehta Vs. Jayantilal P. Thakkar, 2010 (1) FAC 528; (5) Legal Heirs of H. S. SiddiqinVs. A. Ramligam, 2011 (2) GLR 1429; (6) State of Gujarat Vs. Vinubhai Someshwar Trivedi in Criminal Appeal No.1468 of 2004; (7) Vikrambhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs. Gupta Parmeshvarnath Gangaprasad in Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 2012 9. This Court has perused the impugned judgment and order and the Anding recorded by the trial Court with regard to the conviction for the alleged oFence, which reversed by the Arst Appellate Court. On the basis of the same, while going to the provisions of Section 20 of the PFA Act with regard to the sanction, since it is evident from the record that the sanctioning authority has accorded sanction only on the basis of the Public Analyst’s report and not referred any document while according the sanction. While according the sanction there was mistake in the name of accused No.2 which was subsequently corrected but the corrected copy was not produced on record. So far as the provisions of Rule 32(f) of the PFA Rules as observed by the trial Court is not at all made out against the accused. As the order of acquittal which is also based upon the Anding with regard to the food item packed which was not actually adulterated but it was found mis- branded and was not in violation of the Rules as referred by the Arst Appellate Court which deserves to be uphold and as such the same is not reversed the acquittal recorded by the Arst Appellate Court and hence the same deserves to be conArmed for the reasons that Amul Shakti is pasteurized standardized milk is as per Rule 32(f) of the PFA Rules and there is no violation. The pouch contained the date, year and expiry as per Rule 32(f). It is not a case of the complainant that R/CR.A/23/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2026 the public analyst’s report, article contained in adulteration neither impermissible ingredients nor the food article was adulterated in any manner. It was only the case of misbranding on account of stamp found on the pouch wherein date was mentioned as 26.01.2005, whereas, the complainant collected the sample on 25.01.2005, for which, the explanation was given by the accused that on 26.01.2005, there was a public holiday and therefore, the stamp was found of 26.01.2005, though the milk was packed on 25.01.2005. On perusal of Rule 32(f) of the PFA Rules and in light of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the acquittal recorded by the Arst Appellate Court is in consonance with the settled principles annunciated by the said decision. If the order of acquittal is sustainable on any other grounds, which are capable of being made out from the record and proceedings and evidence of the record, then the acquittal could be sustained on those grounds, which might not have been adverted to by the Trial Court while recording the acquittal of the accused. In the instant case, relying upon these principles, the court proceeded to examine the merits of the order of acquittal. The two documents, i.e. the report of the public analyst and the testimony of the Food Inspector are suMcient to sustain the order of acquittal. So far as the sample taken by the Food Inspector and sealing of the sample is concerned, there was no cogent and positive evidence on record and, therefore, the Arst Appellate Court, after considering the submissions, in para – 18 onward has rightly recorded the order of acquittal. It was observed by the Arst Appellate Court that even Rule 32(f) and Section 28 (9)(e) was found to be violative though it was not considered by the trial Court and, therefore, after referring and relying upon the decisions, the Arst Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. R/CR.A/23/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2026 10. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Vinubhai Someshwar Trivedi in Criminal Appeal No.1468 of 2004, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed in para 5 as under:- “5.......... the label in question has not been produced before the Court as could be seen from the paragraphs starting under the reasoning portion of the award. Now when the label, which has not been produced and which has been strongly relied upon for lodging the prosecution and to bring home the conviction, then the order of acquittal need not be disturbed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure......” 11. It is also observed in para – 3 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vikrambhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs. Gupta Parmeshvarnath Gangaprasad in Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 2012. “3.......... However one of the contentions which found favour with the trial Court was non production of the wrapper/label which was in question, for acquitting the respondents no.1 and 2. Nor was the public analyst examined..........” 12. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the Court is of the view that this acquittal appeal does not deserve to be accepted as the order of acquittal has not resulted into miscarriage of justice. The appeal therefore, fails and is hereby, dismissed. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and proceedings to the trial Court forthwith. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/08/2026 16:36:41