After 38 years SC acquits man accused of selling adulterated Haldi powder

Pranjal Sharma | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 1st August 2020

After 38 years SC acquits man accused of selling adulterated Haldi powder

PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

FACTS

1. The present case is an appeal arising out of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the HC turned over the judgement of the trial court and acquitted the appellant for offences under Section 2 (1a) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, punishable under Section 16(1A) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the   Act for selling adulterated Haldi power, when he did not even have the license to even sell Haldi power.
2. On the 18th of August 1982, the Food Inspector, along with Medical Officer, inspected the shop of the accused-appellant in the presence of the witnesses and found 10 kgs of Haldi Powder in the shop of accused, and the Inspector purchased 600 grams Haldi Powder and a sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst who then reported that the sample contained four living mealworms and two live weevils.
3.  The trial court acquitted the appellant and upon appeal, the High Court impugned judgment of trial court & convicted the appellant under Section 2 (la) (f) of the Act for selling adulterated Haldi Powder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/­ in default whereof to undergo further imprisonment for one month under Section 16 (lA) of the Act & under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act for selling Haldi Powder without a license.
4. The appellant put forth the contention that the public analyst the sample did not mention that it was either ‘insect-infested’ or was ‘unfit for human consumption’ & that the appellant went unrepresented in the High Court as the advocate representing the appellant did not appear in Court.

RULE OF LAW

 Section 16(1A) read along with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

• Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1A) if any person—

whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sales or stores, sells or distributes any article of food that is adulterated.

• ………… the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years, and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees.

JUDGEMENT

1. Through the cross-examination of the medical officer the hon’ble court held that the medical officer did not find any weevils/worms in the sample on seeing it with naked eyes and Although, the food inspector (P.W­1) stated that the sample was dispatched to the public analyst on the next date, however, no parcel receipt was produced to the court. The court also held that although the sample was received by the public analyst on 20.08.1982 but the report was finalized after the delay of 18 days, and there exists no evidence that the samples were not tampered within the intervening period, which is why, benefit of doubt accrues in favor of the accused.
2. The court also observed that the report of the public analyst does not mention that it was “insect infested” or was “unfit for human consumption”, in the absence of such   an   opinion,   the   prosecution   has   failed   to   establish   the requirements of Section 2 (1a)(f)   of   the   Act.[1]

Therefore, the impugned order of conviction passed by the High Court is not sustainable and the court upheld the order of acquittal.

[1] Delhi Administration. v. Sat Sarup Sharma, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 324