Aluminium Foil on Kaju Katri Not Adulteration Without Proof of Health Hazard, Gujarat HC Confirms Acquittal

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal, holding that aluminium foil coating on kaju katri does not constitute adulteration absent evidence that the foil is injurious to human health, and separately faulted the prosecution for failing to comply with Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 on sample collection.

The State of Gujarat challenged an order of acquittal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad after the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat at Vyara set aside a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak, sitting singly, dismissed the State's appeal on 17 June 2026. The judgment rests on two independent foundations: the prosecution's failure to clean sample bottles as required under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and the complete absence of any evidence that the aluminium foil found on kaju katri was hazardous to health. Both grounds had been addressed by the Sessions Court when acquitting the accused, and the High Court found no manifest illegality in that reasoning.

The Food Inspector's Visit and the Prosecution Case

On 9 March 1995, Food Inspector B.N. Chaudhari visited M/S. Bharat Sweets and Farsan Mart at Shop No. 6, J.B. and S.A. Shopping Centre, Vyara, District Surat. He purchased a muddamal sample of silver-foiled kaju katri in the presence of panch witnesses, paying Rs. 96/-, and dispatched it to the Public Analyst, Bhuj for analysis.

The Public Analyst's report concluded that the sample did not conform to the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. Armed with that report and a sanction from the Local Health Authority, the Food Inspector filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vyara. The case was registered as Criminal Case No. 1709/1995. The accused were charged under Sections 2(1-A)(A), 2(1-A)(C), and 2(1-A)(M) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

After cognizance was taken, the respondents applied for re-analysis of the kaju katri by the Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad. That laboratory's report, marked Exhibit 16, confirmed the finding: the test for silver foil was negative, and the test for aluminium foil was positive. The opinion appended to the report read that the sample was “adulterated” on account of the presence of aluminium foil.

Trial Court Conviction and the Sessions Court Reversal

The Judicial Magistrate, Vyara convicted the respondents on 24 November 2006. The sentence imposed was simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with six months' further simple imprisonment in default.

The respondents appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat at Vyara. By judgment dated 6 November 2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 1/2006, the Sessions Court acquitted them of all charges. The State then filed Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 2008 before the High Court under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Two Distinct Grounds That Sank the Prosecution

Non-compliance with Rule 14 on sample collection. Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 requires that samples be taken in clean, dry bottles or jars, closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage or the entrance of moisture, and carefully sealed. During his examination before the trial court (Exhibit 39), Food Inspector B.N. Chaudhari — PW 1 — admitted in cross-examination that the bottles used to collect the sample had not been cleaned as required under the Rules. He also conceded that he had no documentary evidence showing the aluminium foil was injurious to human health or that its use was prohibited under the Act or the Rules.

The High Court noted that this was not a borderline procedural lapse. PW 1's admission was unambiguous: he stated in clear terms that he had not cleaned the bottle before taking the sample. Justice Prachchhak referred to the earlier Gujarat High Court decision in State of Gujarat v. Punabhai Ramabhai Machhi, reported in 2005 FAJ 376, where non-compliance with Rule 14 had been held to be fatal to the prosecution's case in an appeal against acquittal. In that decision, the absence of positive evidence that sample bottles were cleaned had led to the same outcome.

No evidence that aluminium foil is hazardous to health. Even setting aside the Rule 14 issue, the High Court found that the prosecution had produced no material to establish that aluminium foil coating on kaju katri is harmful to human health or unfit for human consumption. The question the court identified was whether the aluminium foil found on the article was hazardous to health. PW 1 himself admitted in cross-examination that he had no statutory basis or documentary proof to support such a finding and had not even filed a complaint for misbranding — only for adulteration.

Justice Prachchhak referred to a consistent line of Gujarat High Court decisions addressing the same issue: State of Gujarat v. Rasiklal Shah and Anr., reported in 1994 Cr.L.R. (Guj) 94; Iqbal Musabhai Hunani v. State of Gujarat and Anr. in Criminal Revision Application No. 173 of 1984; and Vimal B. Chauhan v. Kalubhai Ambalal Jesani & 1, reported in 2011 Lawsuit(Guj) 1943. In each of those matters, the court had held that the mere use of aluminium foil for coating a sweet article does not make that article adulterated in the absence of evidence that the foil is injurious to health.

The court found that the Sessions Court had correctly engaged with these precedents in paragraphs 11, 19, and 20 of the impugned order, and had properly reasoned through both the Rule 14 failure and the absence of health-hazard evidence. The trial court's conviction had ignored these mandatory provisions and the settled legal position.

The State's Arguments and Why They Did Not Persuade

Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri argued that the appellate court had failed to appreciate PW 1's deposition at Exhibit 39, which she said showed that vessels had been cleaned, corroborated by the panchnama at Exhibit 45. She contended this meant there was no breach of Rule 14. She further submitted that both the Public Analyst and the Central Food Laboratory had confirmed the presence of aluminium foil, and that the Sessions Court's findings were perverse, illegal, and contrary to the evidence on record.

The High Court did not accept these submissions. On the Rule 14 question, the court found that PW 1's own cross-examination evidence directly contradicted the prosecution's claim that vessels had been cleaned. The deposition at Exhibit 39 and the panchnama at Exhibit 45, read together, did not eliminate the clear admission by PW 1 that the bottles were not cleaned. On the aluminium foil question, both laboratory reports established the presence of aluminium foil, but neither established that it was harmful to health. The opinion of adulteration in the Central Food Laboratory report was based solely on the presence of aluminium foil rather than silver foil, with no assessment of health impact.

Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Ashok Purohit, supported the Sessions Court's reasoning and urged that the prosecution had failed to lead cogent evidence to prove the charges.

The Standard for Interfering with an Acquittal

Justice Prachchhak set out the applicable standard at length. An appellate court has full power to review and re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must bear in mind that two presumptions operate in favour of the accused: the general presumption of innocence, and the reinforcement of that presumption by the fact of acquittal already secured. Where two reasonable conclusions are possible on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal.

Interference is warranted only where the lower court's approach is vitiated by manifest illegality, or where its conclusion is one that no reasonable person could reach and is therefore perverse. The court drew on the principles in Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, re-affirmed in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, reported in [2022] 3 SCC 471, and further elaborated in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, which reiterated that it is “absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject” witness testimony before reversing an acquittal.

Applying that standard, Justice Prachchhak found that the Sessions Court had not committed any error of fact or law. The conviction by the trial Magistrate, on the other hand, had misread the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and the Sessions Court was right to reverse it. On the court's own re-appreciation of the evidence, the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Outcome

Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 2008 was dismissed as devoid of merits. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat at Vyara on 6 November 2007 was confirmed. The bail bond of the respondents was cancelled. The record and proceedings were directed to be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith.