Synopsis

The appellant (Food Inspector, Surat Municipal Corporation) challenged the acquittal of the respondents (a restaurant partnership firm and its partners/nominees) for selling adulterated curd (fat content 2.2% against required 6%). The trial court acquitted the accused. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that: (i) the prosecution failed to prove that the accused partners were “in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business” of the partnership firm as required under Section 17 of the PFA Act; (ii) mere bald statements about being partners/nominees without specific allegations of role in day-to-day management are insufficient; (iii) there was unexplained delay in filing the complaint (nine months after receiving analyst report); (iv) the complainant did not prove the partnership deed or the fact that the nominated persons were indeed responsible. The court relied on PepsiCo India Holdings (2010) and Sanjay Dutt (2025).

Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker

Date of Judgment: Not specified in the provided text (likely between 2006 and 2026; reference to 2025 Supreme Court citation)

Citation: R/Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. 1404 of 2006

Core Law: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Sections 7(1), 16, 17; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 (appeal against acquittal)

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of gujarat at ahmedabad

R/criminal appeal (against acquittal) no. 1404 of 2006

A.s.lineswala (appellant) vs. Mirch masala restaurant & ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice sanjeev j. thaker

Date: not specified (cav judgment)

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 – section 7(1) (prohibition of manufacture, sale, etc. of adulterated food), section 16 (penalties), section 17 (offences by companies – includes firms)

• Code of criminal procedure, 1973 – section 378 (appeal against acquittal)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether the partners of a partnership firm can be held vicariously liable for an offence under the PFA Act committed by the firm without specific allegations that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; and whether an appeal against acquittal should be allowed when the prosecution fails to p

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.