STATE OF GUJARATversusPATEL ASHOK KALIDAS

      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

                                        Page 1 of 8
     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


                                Page 2 of 8
     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


                                 Page 3 of 8
     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



                                    Page 4 of 8
     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 26 th 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:-


                                    Page 5 of 8
      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


                                Page 6 of 8
    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.



                               Page 7 of 8
          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




                                                           Page 8 of 8