PFA Act | Misbranding Charge Fails If Seizure Memo Is Silent On Label Defects: Himachal Pradesh High Court

“Had the batch number and vegetarian symbol not been available on the said sample bottles, the Food Inspector ought to have made reference to this effect in Panchnama.” — In a seminal ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice Sushil Kukreja, dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of a shopkeeper accused of selling misbranded Soy Sauce, establishing that the absence of specific label defects in the seizure memo is fatal to the prosecution's case.

The Case Matrix: The ‘Kikkoman’ Controversy

The legal battle originated from an inspection conducted on April 30, 2007, at "M/s Rajat General Store" in Kullu. The Food Inspector seized eight bottles of Kikkoman Soy Sauce, alleging that the products were misbranded. The crux of the prosecution's case was based on the Public Analyst's report, which stated that the labels lacked a batch number, date of manufacture, and the mandatory vegetarian symbol.

While the Trial Court initially convicted the respondent under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment, the First Appellate Court overturned this verdict in 2014. The State of Himachal Pradesh subsequently moved the High Court challenging this acquittal.

“The Food Inspector... stated in his statement... that he did not remember what was written on the bottles.”

The Panchnama Lacuna: A Fatal Flaw

Justice Kukreja meticulously dissected the procedural history, placing heavy reliance on the Panchnama (Seizure Memo) prepared at the spot. The Court observed a glaring inconsistency: the Panchnama made absolutely no mention that the bottles were missing the batch number or vegetarian symbol at the time of seizure.

The Court reasoned that if the misbranding was visible to the naked eye (i.e., missing labels), the Food Inspector was duty-bound to record it immediately in the Panchnama. The fact that the Inspector only alleged misbranding after receiving the Public Analyst's report created a reasonable doubt that the labels might have been intact during the seizure but damaged or altered later.

Evidentiary Gaps and Hostile Witnesses

The prosecution's case further crumbled due to the testimony of the Food Inspector (CW-2), who admitted in cross-examination that he "did not remember what was written on the bottles." Furthermore, the independent witness, Ashwani Kumar (CW-4), failed to corroborate the State's version, testifying that he merely signed unfilled forms and was unaware of what was actually purchased.

“The possibility cannot be ruled out that at the time of taking of sample of the bottles, the batch number and vegetarian symbol were available.”

Double Presumption of Innocence

Dismissing the appeal, the High Court invoked the doctrine of Double Presumption of Innocence. Citing Supreme Court precedents in N. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, the Bench reiterated that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence. The Appellate Court should not interfere merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted only if the acquittal is "perverse" or "unreasonable."

Finding no perversity in the First Appellate Court's reasoning, the High Court upheld the acquittal, discharging the respondent of all charges.

Date of Decision: 22/12/2025