( 2025:HHC:44895 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 245 of 2015 Reserved on: 17.12.2025 Decided on: 22.12.2025 ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant Versus Karan Rajput …Respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Balwinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) laying challenge to judgment dated 19.07.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 07 of 2014 (2012), whereby, judgment of conviction dated 17.09.2012 and order of sentence dated 24.09.2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 144-I/2007/40-III/2008 has been set aside, wherein, accused-respondent was sentenced to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:44895 ) undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “PFA Act”). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.04.2007 the Food Inspector, Kullu, inspected the premises of accused M/s Rajat General Store, Shastri Nagar, Kullu and found eight bottles, each containing 500 ml of Kikkoman Soy sauce, each meant for sale to general public. The Food Inspector had drawn its sample in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. A Panchnama was prepared on the spot, which was signed by the accused and witnesses present on the spot. One sample was sent to Public Analyst, Kandaghat for analysis and remaining two parts of the same were deposited with the Local Health Authority. The Public Analyst, on analysis, found the sample misbranded, as batch number, month and year, in which product was manufactured or packed and the symbol to indicate that the product is vegetarian food have not been mentioned on the label. Consequently, a case under PFA Act was registered against the accused. 3. On finding prima facie case against the accused, 2 ( 2025:HHC:44895 ) notice of accusation was put to him under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of PFA Act, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, during trial, the prosecution examined as many as 04 witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence. 5. The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 17.09.2012 and order of sentence dated 24.09.2012, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 19.07.2014 and the accused was acquitted, hence the present appeal by the State. 6. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondents/accused and have also gone through the record carefully. 3 ( 2025:HHC:44895 ) 7. The learned Deputy Advocate General contended that it has been proved on record that the respondent was selling misbranded food articles in his shop, which fact also stands proved from the report of Public Analyst, as such, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the respondent, therefore, he submitted well reasoned judgment of learned trial Court may be upheld and the judgment of learned First Appellate Court may be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him. 9. At the very outset, it needs to be observed that the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal as an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. In Dhanapal vs. State By Public Prosecutor, Madras, (2009) 10 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the presumption of innocence of the accused is strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The relevant portion of the 4 ( 2025:HHC:44895 ) aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “25. The same principle has been followed in Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807 (at pp. 809-10 para 5), wherein the Court said: “5. …It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of ac- quittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-es- tablished rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judg- ment of acquittal passed by the trial court Thus, the Ap- pellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Which had the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence. It is also well settled that the court of ap- peal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal." 10. In N. Vijaykumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 687, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him and secondly, the presumption of his innocence is further strengthened by the judgment of his acquittal passed by the trial Court. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “20. ……... By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 has laid down the general princi- ples regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judg- ment which is relevant reads as under: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding pow- ers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal 5 ( 2025:HHC:44895 ) against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double pre- sumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the pre- sumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Sec- ondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.” 11. In Jafarudheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 12. Equally settled is the proposition that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court, when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence, to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court and the 6 ( 2025:HHC:44895 ) expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court, the decision of which is under appeal, would ordinarily suffice (Refer: Girijanandini Devi and Others Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124). 13. Therefore, the instant appeal has to be decided in view of the aforesaid settled legal proposition. In the case in hand, the prosecution has examined as many as 04 witnesses. 14. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence on record led by the prosecution and from the closure scrutiny thereof, it has become clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond doubt. From the perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses it has come on record that the prosecution has failed to prove on record that three pet bottles of Kikkoman Soy Sauce, i.e., food article were not having batch number and vegetarian symbol on the sample bottles, as no reference has been made in the Panchnama Ext. CW-2/C about the batch number and vegetarian symbol on the sample bottles. Had the batch number and vegetarian symbol not been available on the said sample bottles, the food Inspector ought to have made reference to this effect in Panchnama Ext. CW-2/C, rather Panchnama Ext. CW-2/C indi- 7 ( 2025:HHC:44895 ) cates that the samples were taken for analysis. Moreover, the then Food Inspector, who took the sample bottles has also stated in his statement, while appearing in the witness box as CW-2 that he did not remember what was written on the bottles. Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that at the time of taking of sample of the bottles, the batch number and vegetarian symbol were available on the said sample bottles, especially when the complainant has also stated in his statement that he came to know about the misbranding of the sample only when the report of Public Analyst was received. 15. Furthermore, had there been no mark on the purchased bottles, the Food Inspector ought to have made reference in the Panchnama that no such mark or symbol was available on the bottles and straightaway case against accused could have been made even without obtaining the opinion of Public Analyst. Besides above, even the so called independent witness CW-4 Ashwani Kumar has also not uttered even a single word in his statement that when the sample bottles of food articles were purchased, no such mark had been there on the purchased bottles and the accused was selling misbranded food article, rather he has stated that only his signatures were taken 8 ( 2025:HHC:44895 ) by Food Inspector on unfilled forms and even he did not know what was purchased by the Food Inspector from the accused. Hence, the case of prosecution becomes doubtful in the light of the statement of the aforesaid witness. Since neither Food Inspector/complainant CW-2 Deepak Raj Anand nor the so called independent witness CW-4 Ashwani Kumar has stated even a single word in their statements that the sample bottles were found misbranded by them at the time when samples were taken and CW-2 Deepak Raj Anand Food Inspector has stated that he came to know about the sample misbranded only on receipt of report of Public Analyst, same makes the case of prosecution highly doubtful as had the sample bottles were without any mark, address of the importer of the product or without labeling the same, ought to have come to the notice of the complainant and instead of sending the sample for analysis in order to find the sample adulterated, the complainant could have filed complaint against the accused for selling the misbranded food article directly in the Court without taking Public Analyst report. 16. Therefore, in view of the material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 9 ( 2025:HHC:44895 ) The appellant-State has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality, much less, perversity in the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned First Appellate Court, as such, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge December 22, 2025 (raman) 10