{"id":66714,"date":"2010-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010"},"modified":"2019-04-03T22:52:53","modified_gmt":"2019-04-03T17:22:53","slug":"food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Food vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Food vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/3177\/2008\t 5\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 3177 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nFOOD\nINSPECTOR - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nASHWINBHAI\nMOHANBHAI KHUNT & 3 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS\nJIRGA D JHAVERI for the Appellant. \nMR DK MODI and MR MD MODI for\nrespondent nos. 2 and 3. \nMr. D.C.Sejpal, Additional PUBLIC\nPROSECUTOR for respondent no.\n4. \n========================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 28\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \n\t\t\t\tORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\t\tThe
\npresent appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n1973 is filed by Food Inspector, Ahmedabad Municipal
\nCorporation-original complainant  against the judgment and order of
\nacquittal dated 23.8.2007 passed by the learned  Metropolitan
\nMagistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case no. 35 of 2001 whereby the
\naccused persons  have been acquitted of the charges under sections 7
\nand 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tBrief
\nfacts of the prosecution case are that TATA tempo no. GJ-3-X-4849 was
\nintercepted which was carrying 200 tins of edible oil and he was on
\nthe way to deliver the same to Yogeshwar Marketing, Ahmedabad. The
\nowner did not turn up to the spot.  Thereafter, in presence of the
\npanchas, the complainant collected and purchased  400 gms. of oil
\nfrom the tin for analysis. The said sample was thereafter sent to
\nPublic Analyst. As per the report of the Public Analyst, the said
\nsample was found adulterated.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tTherefore,
\na complaint with respect to the aforesaid offence was filed against
\nthe respondents in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
\nAhmedabad. The plea of the complainant as well as that of the accused
\nwere recorded.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tWith
\na view to prove the case against the respondents-accused, the
\nprosecution has examined the complainant Vikram Dahyabhai Patel at
\nexh. 40, witness Jayantibhai at exh. 79,  and panch witness
\nVasantbhai Solanki  at exh. 94  as well as produced   documentary
\nevidence. After the trial, after recording statements of the accused
\npersons under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and after
\nhearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the
\nlearned  Metropolitan  Magistrate, Ahmedabad has acquitted the
\nrespondents-accused of all the charges levelled against them by the
\njudgment an order dated 23.8.2007.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tBeing
\naggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order
\npassed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,  Ahmedabad, the
\nappellant has preferred the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tHeard
\nlearned Advocate Ms. Jirga Zaveri for the appellant.  She has
\ncontended that the complainant  has proved the case against the
\nrespondents-accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also contended
\nthat the complainant  has also proved documentary evidence to prove
\nhis case. She has also vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge
\nhas not considered the oral as well as documentary evidence produced
\nby the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tAt
\nthe outset, it is required to be noted that the principles which
\nwould govern and regular the hearing of appeal by this  Court against
\nan order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very
\nsuccinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In
\nthe case of M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and Anr.
\nreported in (2006) SCC 39, the Apex Court has narrated about the
\npowers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In
\npara 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
“54: In
\nany event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an
\nappeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional
\njurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a
\njudgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the
\nwell settled principles of law that where two views are possible, the
\nappellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal
\nrecorded by the court below.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tFurther,
\nin the case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka,<\/a> reported in
\n(2007) 4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following
\nprinciples:\n<\/p>\n
 “42: From
\nthe above decisions, in our considered view, the following general
\nprinciples regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with
\nan appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:\n<\/p>\n
(1) An
\nappellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and
\nreconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The Code of
\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition
\non exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence
\nbefore it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of act and
\nof law.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Various
\nexpressions, such as “substantial and compelling reasons”,
\n“good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong
\ncircumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring
\nmistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of
\nan appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Sych phraseologies
\nare more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to
\nemphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with
\nacquittal than to curtain he power of the court to review the
\nevidence and to come to its own conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
(4) An
\nappellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of
\nacquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
\nFirstly,the presumption of innocence is available to him under the
\nfundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that every person
\nshall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
\ncompetent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
\nacquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
\nreaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
(5) If two
\nreasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on
\nrecord, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of
\nacquittal recorded by the trial court.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tThus,
\nit is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even
\nif two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
\nevidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
\nfinding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tEven
\nin a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of
\nGoa, vs. Sanjay Thakran and Anr.<\/a> reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the
\nCourt has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In
\npara 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
  “16.\n<\/p>\n
From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising
\nthe powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of
\nappeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal
\nunless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest
\nillegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by
\nany reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
\ncharacterised as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
\nCourt of appeal would not take the view which would upset the
\njudgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court
\nhas a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
\nconclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court
\nhas committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material
\nevidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such
\ncircumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
\ndecision on the basis of material placed on record to find out
\nwhether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the
\ncrime he is charged with.”\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tSimilar
\nprinciple has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of
\nState of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh and Ors.,<\/a> reported in 2007
\nAIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRS vs. State of MP,
\nreported in 2007 AIR SC 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court
\nmay exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tIt
\nis also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the
\nappellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give
\nfresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are
\nfound to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex
\nCourt in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Hemareddy,<\/a> reported in
\nAIR 1981 SC 1417, wherein, it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n
    “…This
\nCourt has observed in Girija Nandini Devi vs. Bigendra Nandini
\nChaudhary (1967) SCR 93; (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty
\nof the appellate court when it agrees with a view of the trial court
\non the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to
\nreiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general
\nagreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which
\nis under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.”\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tThus,
\nin case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion
\ngiven by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tI
\nhave gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I
\nhave also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before
\nthe trial court and also considered the submissions made by the
\nlearned Advocate for the appellant. The trial court while considering
\nthe oral as well as documentary evidence has clearly observed that
\nthe appellant has  miserably failed to prove its case beyond
\nreasonable doubt against the respondents.  From the evidence on
\nrecord, it appears that the accused no.1 who is cited as an accused
\nin the alleged offence was simply a driver of the vehicle. Even I
\nhave tried to find out something from the Prevention of Food
\nAdulteration Act, whether a driver-an abettor can be joined as an
\naccused in such type of  offence. The learned counsel for the
\nappellant is unable to show from the provisions of the Act that an
\nabettor can be joined as an accused in such type of offence under
\nPrevention of Food Adulteration Act.  It also appears from the oral
\nevidence that exh. 103  is a marked document, a xerox copy of the
\nbill, exh. 104 is also a xerox copy of the permission. From the
\nperusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence, it also appears
\nthat it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the documents
\nmarks A and B were proved before the trial court. Looking to the root
\nof this case, the important document is  mark A and mark A is not
\nproved. In this view of the matter, the accused cannot be convicted
\nfor such offence. Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or
\npointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial court. Thus, from
\nthe evidence itself, it is established that the prosecution has not
\nproved its case beyond reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tLearned
\nAdvocate for the appellant  is not in a position to show any evidence
\nto take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the
\ntrial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the
\ndecision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material
\nevidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tIn
\nthe above view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the
\ntrial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of
\nthe charges levelled against them.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tI
\nfind that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely
\njust and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or
\ninfirmity has been committed by it.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tI
\nam, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
\nconclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court
\nbelow and hence find no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the
\nappeal preferred by the appellant is  hereby dismissed. Record and
\nProceedings be sent back to the trial court forthwith. Bail bonds, if
\nany, stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Z.K.Saiyed,J)<\/p>\n
***darji<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Food vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010 Author: Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/3177\/2008 5\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3177 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66714","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFood vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Food vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-03T17:22:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Food vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T17:22:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1833,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Food vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T17:22:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Food vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Food vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Food vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-03T17:22:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Food vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-03T17:22:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010"},"wordCount":1833,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010","name":"Food vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-03T17:22:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-vs-appearance-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Food vs Appearance : on 28 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66714","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66714"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66714\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}