The Gujarat High Court has upheld a trial court court order acquitting a diary farm owner who was booked for selling adulterated ghee after finding that none of the requirements provided for drawing the sample of 'Pure Ghee' under The Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules had been followed. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 254]

In doing so the court noted that it was not proved that the container containing the Ghee was properly heated, as prescribed under the Rules, before the sealing and sampling procedure was undertaken.

Justice Hemant M Prachchhak noted that the complainant-food inspector deposed before the Trial Court and admitted that he had not followed the mandatory requirements prescribed under the Rules.

As per the Rules, the samples of food are to taken in clean dry bottles/jars/other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed. 

In the present case, there is no evidence to establish whether the container containing the Ghee was properly heated, as prescribed under the Rules, before the sealing and sampling procedure was undertaken.

The witness had also deposed before the Trial Court that he was present at the time of drawing the sample, however the procedure prescribed had not been followed.

"In view of the observations made by this Court, while taking a sample of 'Pure Ghee', the procedure prescribed under the Rules is required to be strictly complied with. In the present case, there is no evidence to establish whether the container containing the Ghee was properly heated, as prescribed under the Rules, before the sealing and sampling procedure was undertaken. Thus, in the absence of any evidence regarding compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rules 14 and 4(4) of the Rules, 1955, the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is in consonance with the settled legal principles enunciated and followed in the aforesaid decisions. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order and I do not find any illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order warranting interference by this Court," the court held. 

The court was hearing Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's appeal against trial court order acquitting the respondent of offences under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

It was alleged that when the complainant food inspector visited a dairy farm being run by respondent for inspection, they had found some material was present in an aluminium vessel and on questioning about the nature and price of the food product, it was informed that it was 'GHEE' priced at Rs. 280 per kg.

The complainant purchased 600 grams of Ghee. Thereafter a sample of the Ghee was filled in three empty, dry, clean and labeled glass-bottles which were closed with air tight caps and were seal packed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act, and one part of the sample was sent on the same day through the hands of office peon to the Public Analyst, A.M.C. for analysis.

The other two samples with forwarding letters were handed over personally to Local Health Authority and M.O.H. by the appellant.

According to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample of ghee contained turmeric, which was in violation of the Rules under the Act and the analyst had opined that the sample of the food article which was sold to the appellant was adulterated. After obtaining the sanction to prosecute the respondent from the competent authority–Deputy Municipal Commissioner, a complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate for offences under the Act. 

"Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on record," the court said. 

The appeal was dismissed.

Case title: AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v/s  LALJI ISHWARDAS PATEL & ANR

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 241 of 2013

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 254

Click Here To Read/Download Order