Sweet seller used aluminum foil on Kaju Katli instead of silver foil, was sentenced to 3 years jail; he wins case in Gujarat HC due to this reason

On March 9, 1995 at 10.30AM Mr Chaudhari, a food inspector while on duty visited Mr Bhanubhai's sweet shop in Vyara, district Surat, Gujarat and purchased some Kaju Katli for Rs 96 after giving him an intimation in Form no. 6. After purchasing the Kaju Katli, Chaudhari sent it for testing to Public Analyst, Bhuj.

The Public Analyst, Bhuj analysed the sample of Kaju Katli sent by Chaudhari and came to the conclusion that this Kaju Katli had used Aluminum foil.

Thus the food inspector said that Bhanubhai violated the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules and so when the analysis report from Bhuj came to Chaudhari he asked for permission to prosecute Bhanubhai and his shop partners. When the permission came Chaudhari prosecuted Bhanubhai and his partners before the Judicial Magistrate, Vyara under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.


The Vyara Judicial Magistrate registered a case (Criminal Case No. 1709/1995) and intimated Bhanubhai with a copy of the Bhuj Public Analyst report. However, Bhanubhai wanted a re-analysis by the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The court accepted this re-analysis request and accordingly sent the Kaju Katli to Ghaziabad central food laboratory.

The Ghaziabad central food laboratory said: "The sample shows presence of aluminium foil. The sample is thus adulterated."

Thus both the labs (Bhuj and Ghaziabad) found that Bhanubhai had used Aluminum foil in the Kaju Katli instead of Silver foil.

So the Judicial Magistrate explained the charges to Bhanubhai, who pleaded not guilty and asked for a trial. After closure of the evidence, Bhanubhai and his partners' statements were recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 wherein he denied having committed any offence and has stated that he is innocent.

The Judicial Magistrate after appreciating the evidence, on November 24, 2006 ordered him and his partners to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs 5000 and if not paid a further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

Since the time this imprisonment order was passed in 2006, Bhanubhai has appealed in various courts.

Ultimately on June 17, 2026 the Gujarat High Court ruled in his favour and cancelled the imprisonment sentence on the ground that the food inspector did not collect the Kaju Katli sample as per Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and also that no evidence was given to the court to show if Aluminium foil in Kaju Katli is harmful or not.

Also read: Wife sold Rs 25 Pepsi for Rs 26, husband faced criminal case for 13 years; Bombay HC quashes case against him for this reason

Read below to know more about how Bhanubhai won the case.

How Bhanubhai won the case

Amitraj Kaushal, Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India said to ET Wealth Online that Bhanubhai won the case as there were actually two independent grounds here, and either one alone would have been enough.

Firstly, Mr Chaudhari, the Food Inspector himself admitted that the sample bottles on which he collected the Kaju Katli samples were not cleaned before collection. Cleaning of the sample bottle before using it is a mandatory requirement under Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. And secondly, Kaushal says that no evidence was presented before the Gujarat High Court that confirm that aluminium foil is harmful to human health.

Thus Kaushal says that the Gujarat High Court leaned on its own settled precedents, including Rasiklal Shah and Iqbal Musabhai Hunani case and held that using aluminium foil without proof of harm does not amount to adulteration.

According to Kaushal this ruling establishes a precedent requiring scientific or medical evidence of harm to be presented before a particular food can be legally classified as “adulterated,”

“Simply detecting an unauthorised substance is not the finish line, the Court has consistently held, now reaffirmed through Vimal B Chauhan, that there also needs to be proof the substance is actually injurious to health.”

Going forward, Kaushal says that this judgement would mean food safety prosecutions in Gujarat will need to build a stronger evidentiary record around actual harm, not just non-compliance with labelling or packaging norms, or they risk facing the same outcome as this case.

Gujarat High Court order and discussion

Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak of Gujarat High Court passed this judgement on June 17, 2026. A summary of the judgement is as follows:

No evidence presented if Aluminum foil is dangerous to health
The Gujarat High Court observed that it appears that the report of the Public Analyst confirms that the aluminium foil was found on kaju katri collected from the shop.

The high court said that the important question arises whether this aluminium foil found on the article i.e. kaju katri is hazardous to the health of people; whether the article found to be coated with the aluminium foil and in absence of any evidence on record to the effect that aluminium foil is injurious to health and is unfit for human consumption

The Gujarat High Court said: "The mere use of such foil for coating kaju katri would not make that article of food adulterated. Such principle has been consistently laid down and reiterated by this Court in the aforesaid decisions."

The Gujarat High Court said that many judgments from their court have decided similarly situated issues of food adulteration:

?State of Gujarat Vs. Rasiklal Shah and Anr. reported in 1994 Cr.L.R. (Guj) 94,
?The case of Iqbal Musabhai Hunani Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. in Criminal Revision Application No. 173 of 1984 and
?The case of Vimal B Chauhan Vs. Kalubhai Ambalal Jesani & 1 reported in 2011 Lawsuit(Guj) 1943

Food inspector did not follow Rule 14 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 in collecting the samples
The Gujarat High Court said that the Food Inspector himself told that after collecting the sample, he kept it in a glass bottle and further admitted that the bottles were not cleaned as required under the Rules.

Moreover, the high court observed that the Food Inspector (Chaudhari) in his cross examination, has admitted that there was no statutory part and he was not having any documentary evidence to the effect that the aluminium foil is injurious to human health or that its use is prohibited under the Act or the Rules.

The food inspector also admitted that he did not register any complaint for misbranding but he filed Bhanubhai for adulteration. The Gujarat High Court said that the trial court after hearing the food inspector's admission completely misread the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules while passing the conviction order against the present respondents ( which was rightly reversed by the appellate Court.

Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 reads as under:

14. Manner of sending samples for analysis. - Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in 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 case of the State of Gujarat Vs. Punabhai Ramabhai Machhi reported in 2005 FAJ 376, Gujarat High Court has observed non compliance with Rule 14 appeal against the acquittal. No positive evidence on record to show that the sample bottles were cleaned.

In the present case, a positive evidence has been recorded by the trial court that the officer has in clear terms stated that he has not cleaned the bottle before taking samples.

Thus the Gujarat High Court said that they are in agreement with the appellate court's judgement which acquitted Bhanubhai.

Thus the high court said that considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused (Bhanubhai) 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.

The high court ruled: "Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on record"

Order:
?In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed.
?The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the appellate Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled.