Section 2 (1a) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, ‘the Act’) punishable under Section 16(1A) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii) 1 NON­REPORTABLE of the Act for selling adulterated Haldi Powder and selling it without licence.= there is no evidence that the samples were not tampered within the intervening period, therefore benefit of doubt accrues in favor of the accused. Moreover, the report of the public analyst does not mention that the sample was either “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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2255 OF 2010
PREM CHAND                     …APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA           …RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
N. V. RAMANA, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated
09.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal no.492­DBA of 1996, whereby the
High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court acquitting the
appellant herein and convicted him for the offences under Section
2 (1a) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short,
‘the Act’) punishable under Section 16(1A) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii)
1
NON­REPORTABLE
of   the   Act   for   selling   adulterated   Haldi   Powder   and   selling   it
without licence.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 18.8.1982, at about 11
A.M., the Food Inspector, along with Medical Officer, inspected the
shop of the accused­appellant in the presence of the witnesses
and found 10 kgs of Haldi Powder in his shop. The Food Inspector
purchased 600 grams Haldi Powder out of which one sample was
made and then that sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst.
The report of the public analyst dated 07.09.1982, revealed that
the sample was found to contain four living meal worms and two
live weevils. The trial court vide order dated 31.08.1995 acquitted
the   appellant.   However,   upon   appeal,   the   High   Court   vide
impugned  judgment   dated  09.12.2009,  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. The High Court further convicted the appellant for offence
under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act for selling Haldi Powder
2
without licence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one
month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/­ in default whereof to undergo
further imprisonment for fifteen days.
3. The counsel for the appellant submitted that High Court upturns
Trial Court judgment of acquittal into one of conviction  after 27
years from the date of incident and 14 years after the date of trial
court judgment. The counsel vehemently put forth that, the report
of the public analyst no where mentions that the sample was
either ‘insect infested’ or was ‘unfit for human consumption’. It was
lastly contended that, the appellant went unrepresented in the
High Court as the advocate representing the appellant did not
appear in Court.
4. On   the   contrary   the   advocate   appearing   for   the   State   fully
supported the  impugned order passed  by the High  Court  and
submitted that sample was taken from the shop of the accusedappellant which was meant for public sales and the same was
found to be adulterated as per the report of the public analyst.
3
Therefore, the appellant is liable for the offences under Section 2
of the Act.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
carefully perusing the material available on record, we note that
the cross­examination of the medical officer (P.W­2) reveals that he
did not find any weevils/worms in the sample on seeing it with
naked eyes. 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 that extent. Although,
the sample was received in the office of the public analyst on
20.08.1982 and the report was finalized on 07.09.1982 after the
delay of 18 days. There is no evidence that the samples were not
tampered within the intervening period, therefore benefit of doubt
accrues in favor of the accused. Moreover, the report of the public
analyst   does   not   mention   that   the   sample   was   either   “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   (See  Delhi
Administration.   v.   Sat   Sarup   Sharma,   1994   Supp   (3)   SCC
4
324). Moreover, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution
to prove the offence under Section 16 (1) of the Act either before
the trial court or the High Court.
6. Therefore, the impugned order of conviction passed by the High
Court is not sustainable for the aforementioned reasons. We set
aside the same and uphold the order of acquittal passed by the
trial court. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
    …..……................J.
       (N. V. RAMANA)
    …...…….................J.
   (SURYA KANT)
    ……..………............J.
         (KRISHNA MURARI)
NEW DELHI;                                                                         
JULY 30, 2020.
5