Back
Calcutta HC Acquits Man in 25-Year-Old Mustard Oil Adulteration Case Over Seizure Doubts and Conflicting Reports
Introduction
The has acquitted Narayan Chandra Gorai, co-owner of a mustard oil mill, in a long-pending food adulteration case under (PFA Act). Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta set aside convictions by the trial court in 1999 and the sessions court in 2001, citing discrepancies in laboratory reports and unreliable seizure proceedings. The ruling underscores the principle that material inconsistencies in prosecution evidence entitle the accused to the , restoring Gorai's liberty after over two decades.
Case Background
Narayan Chandra Gorai, co-owner of Shreedhar Oil Mill in Sonamukhi, Bankura, West Bengal, faced charges stemming from an inspection on . A Food Inspector, accompanied by witnesses, visited the mill, where Gorai produced the food license. The inspector collected three 125-gram samples of mustard oil labeled "Khanti Sarisar Taila" (Golap Phool Marka brand), paying Rs. 12.75 for one sample as required.
One sample was analyzed by the Public Analyst, whose , report (No. 1167(4) dated ) found the oil adulterated with sesame oil, showing 30 red units. This led to a complaint against Gorai and co-partner Kanika Gorai. The , convicted Gorai on , sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 4,000 fine (with two months' additional jail in default). Kanika was acquitted for lacking involvement. Gorai's appeal was dismissed by the , on .
Gorai filed a criminal revision (C.R.R. 1672 of 2001) under , initially stayed but dismissed for default in and restored in . The case, pending for over 25 years, questioned the validity of the conviction amid conflicting evidence.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner's Contentions: Gorai's counsel, including , argued the conviction was unsustainable. They emphasized , where the certificate supersedes the Public Analyst's report, yet the CFL report only indicated a "positive" result for adulteration without quantifying the percentage or extent, rendering it insufficient for conviction. The Public Analyst's report was flawed, and neither reliably proved adulteration beyond permissible blends (e.g., at least 20% conventional oil).
They highlighted the hostile independent witness (PW 3, Goutam Gorai), who signed the seizure list at the officer's request without knowing its contents, casting doubt on the entire search and seizure under (e.g., labeling and addressing samples). Non-compliance with was also raised, as the trial court was a Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, not a first-class Judicial Magistrate. Counsel noted the 12-month delay in CFL analysis caused rancidity due to the oil's four-month shelf life without preservatives. Finally, they pointed to the acquittal of co-accused Kanika on identical facts, alleging discrimination.
Respondent's Contentions: The State, represented by Public Prosecutor , defended the lower courts' reliance on the Public Analyst's detailed report, which specified 30 red units indicating adulteration with sesame oil. They argued the CFL report was incomplete, lacking mixture percentages, so the Public Analyst's findings prevailed as "full and final." The acquittal of Kanika was justified, as she was absent during the inspection and uninvolved in operations, unlike Gorai, who was present. The State contested the petitioner's claims of procedural lapses, asserting the prosecution proved its case through witnesses PW 1 (Food Inspector Ishwar Ch. Jana), PW 2 (Gopal Chanda, GDA), and documents like the sanction order.
Legal Analysis
The court scrutinized the prosecution's evidence, finding it fundamentally flawed. Under Section 13(3) PFA Act, the CFL report holds , but its vagueness—merely stating adulteration without standards, percentages, or red units—created irreconcilable contradictions with the Public Analyst's quantified findings. Justice Gupta ruled that courts cannot presume adulteration levels exceeding tolerances without explicit evidence, as blended oils (e.g., conventional and non-conventional) are permissible if conforming to rules.
The
of PW 3 undermined the seizure's credibility, violating mandatory PFA Rules on witnessing and documentation. This
"
,"
rendering the search suspicious. No precedents were explicitly cited in the judgment, but the ruling aligns with criminal jurisprudence principles, such as the
and
under
when prosecution fails to prove guilt
. The court distinguished between complete expert evidence supporting conviction and incomplete or conflicting reports that necessitate acquittal, emphasizing strict proof in food safety cases to protect public health without unjustly penalizing accused.
The trial court's jurisdictional issue under Section 20(2) was noted but not pivotal, as the core defects—discrepancies
"
"
and unreliable seizure—sufficed for reversal.
Key Observations
-
"Simply mentioning that the Mustard oil is adulterated is not sufficient. There must be a specific averment towards the standard laid down for Mustard oil under the P.F.A Act and rules thereof. In such a situation, the Court cannot presume the percentage of the blend of Mustard oil."
-
"Two reports of two difference nature... have found some
and the entire story of adulteration to blend some substance of sesame oil... totally doubtful and discrepancies in two reports."
-
"The seizure witness (PW 3) has
of the prosecution by not fully supporting when, how and in what manner the search and seizure was conducted. He deposed as per the instruction of the officer, he signed the seizure list, but he did not or does not know about the contents of the seizure list. In such a situation, the entire search and seizure is found to be suspicious."
-
"When doubt arises in the mind of the Court, it would not be proper to convict any accused persons; rather
always goes in favour of the petitioner."
Court's Decision
The allowed the revision on , setting aside the , trial court judgment and , appellate order. Gorai was acquitted and ordered released forthwith if not required in other cases, upon executing a six-month bond under (corresponding to ).
This decision highlights the need for robust, consistent evidence in PFA Act prosecutions, potentially leading to reviews of similar old cases with evidentiary gaps. It reinforces that doubtful seizures or expert contradictions cannot sustain convictions, benefiting accused in food adulteration matters by prioritizing procedural integrity and reasonable doubt, while urging stricter compliance by inspectors to uphold consumer safety.
