Gujarat High Court Upholds Sweet Shop Owners’ Acquittal, Says No Evidence Aluminium Foil on Kaju Katli Is Harmful
Court Rules Mere Presence of Aluminium Foil Does Not Constitute Food Adulteration Without Proof of Health Risk or Statutory Prohibition
In a significant judgment under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Gujarat High Court has upheld the acquittal of two sweet shop owners accused of selling adulterated Kaju Katli coated with aluminium foil. The Court held that, in the absence of any evidence showing that the aluminium foil was injurious to human health or prohibited under law, its mere presence on the sweet could not justify a conviction for food adulteration.
Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak dismissed the State Government’s appeal against the acquittal, affirming the appellate court’s decision that had overturned the trial court’s conviction. The High Court observed that while laboratory reports confirmed the presence of aluminium foil on the Kaju Katli, the prosecution failed to establish that such coating rendered the food unsafe or unfit for human consumption.
The case originated from an inspection conducted by a Food Inspector at M/s Bharat Sweets and Farsan Mart in Surat, where samples of silver-coated Kaju Katli were collected and sent for analysis. The Public Analyst and later the Central Food Laboratory found that the sweets were coated with aluminium foil rather than silver leaf. Based on these findings, the shop owners were prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
The trial court had convicted the accused in 2006, sentencing them to three years’ simple imprisonment along with a fine. However, the appellate court later acquitted them, concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the aluminium foil was harmful to consumers. Challenging this acquittal, the State approached the Gujarat High Court.
While examining the appeal, the High Court relied on earlier judicial precedents holding that the use of aluminium foil for decorative purposes does not amount to adulteration unless there is scientific evidence demonstrating that it poses a health hazard. The Court noted that neither the Public Analyst’s report nor any other material on record established that the aluminium foil used on the sweets was injurious to health or that its use was prohibited under the applicable statutory framework.
The Court also found serious procedural deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. During cross-examination, the Food Inspector admitted that the glass bottles used for collecting food samples had not been cleaned in the manner required under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. He further acknowledged that he possessed no documentary evidence or statutory notification declaring aluminium foil harmful to human health or banning its use on sweets.
Another important factor that weighed with the Court was that the prosecution had filed the case solely on allegations of adulteration and not for misbranding. The Food Inspector himself admitted that no complaint regarding misbranding had been registered, even though the allegation essentially related to the substitution of silver foil with aluminium foil. The High Court observed that the trial court had misapplied the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by treating the issue as one of adulteration without the necessary legal and scientific foundation.
Dismissing the State’s appeal, the Gujarat High Court reaffirmed that criminal liability under food safety laws must rest on clear statutory violations and reliable scientific evidence rather than assumptions. The judgment reinforces the principle that a conviction for food adulteration cannot be sustained merely because a decorative material differs from what consumers may expect, unless it is proven to be harmful or expressly prohibited by law. The ruling is expected to serve as an important precedent in future prosecutions involving allegations of adulteration based on decorative food coatings.
