1. Food inspector purchased dahi sample — Low fat content — Prosecution under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3552
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J
Bhagirath Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRR NO.2779 of 2004|IA NO:CRAN/1/2025
Important Points
Low fat content in a food product does not automatically constitute adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act unless it is proved that such deficiency injuriously affects the quality of the food or makes it unfit for human consumption.
Subject
Criminal Law - Food Adulteration
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 2(ia), 2(ia)(m), 7(1), 16(1)(a)(i), and 19(1)(a)(ii) - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 100(4), 360, and 361 - PFA Rules, 1955 - Rule 55 - Adulteration of food - Conviction based on low fat content in curd - Mere finding of low fat content by a Public Analyst is insufficient to classify a food item as adulterated unless it is established that such deficiency injuriously affects the nature, substance, or quality thereof, or makes it unfit for human consumption (Paras 14, 18 and 19).
(B) Criminal Prosecution - Procedural Safeguards - Chain of Custody - Where the Public Analyst is not examined as a witness, the messenger who delivered the sample is not cited, and there is no evidence that the sample packet bore the signature of the accused, the prosecution fails to establish a secure chain of custody and satisfactory evidence to sustain a conviction (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
A Food Inspector purchased a sample of curd from a sweetmeat shop and sent it for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated due to low fat content. Based on this report, the trial court convicted the petitioner, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction. The petitioner challenged this via a revisional application, arguing a lack of independent witnesses and that low fat content does not equate to being spurious or harmful.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the conviction was based solely on the Public Analyst's report regarding low fat content without any evidence that the curd was unfit for human consumption or that its quality was injuriously affected. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody as the messenger was not examined and the analyst did not testify in court.
Issues: Whether low fat content alone constitutes adulteration under the Act and whether the prosecution established a sufficient legal chain of custody for the sample.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that low fat content in a food product does not per se constitute adulteration under Section 2(ia) of the Act unless it is proven to be spurious or a health hazard, and the failure to prove the chain of custody of the sample creates a fatal gap in the prosecution's case.
Result: Revisional application allowed; conviction set aside.
(B) Criminal Prosecution - Procedural Safeguards - Chain of Custody - Where the Public Analyst is not examined as a witness, the messenger who delivered the sample is not cited, and there is no evidence that the sample packet bore the signature of the accused, the prosecution fails to establish a secure chain of custody and satisfactory evidence to sustain a conviction (Para 13).
Facts of the case:
A Food Inspector purchased a sample of curd from a sweetmeat shop and sent it for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated due to low fat content. Based on this report, the trial court convicted the petitioner, and the appellate court affirmed the conviction. The petitioner challenged this via a revisional application, arguing a lack of independent witnesses and that low fat content does not equate to being spurious or harmful.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the conviction was based solely on the Public Analyst's report regarding low fat content without any evidence that the curd was unfit for human consumption or that its quality was injuriously affected. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody as the messenger was not examined and the analyst did not testify in court.
Issues: Whether low fat content alone constitutes adulteration under the Act and whether the prosecution established a sufficient legal chain of custody for the sample.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that low fat content in a food product does not per se constitute adulteration under Section 2(ia) of the Act unless it is proven to be spurious or a health hazard, and the failure to prove the chain of custody of the sample creates a fatal gap in the prosecution's case.
Result: Revisional application allowed; conviction set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prabir Kumar Mitra, Prabir Majumder, Sangeeta Chakraborty, Anindita Kundu
For the Respondents: Kallol Mondal, Pritam Roy, Samira Grewal
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prabir Kumar Mitra, Prabir Majumder, Sangeeta Chakraborty, Anindita Kundu
For the Respondents: Kallol Mondal, Pritam Roy, Samira Grewal
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued lack of independent witness, improper sampling, and low fat not constituting adulteration. State supported conviction. (Para 7 , 9 )
3. Public Analyst report only stated low fat; no proof of unfitness for consumption or health hazard. (Para 13 , 14 , 18 )
4. Low fat content alone, without proof of being unfit for human consumption, does not establish adulteration under Section 2(ia)(m). (Para 18 , 19 )
5. Revisional application allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Petitioner released from bail bond. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. Does low fat content in dahi without evidence of unfitness for consumption constitute adulteration under the PFA Act?
No. Low fat content alone, without proof that the article is unfit for human consumption or causes health hazard, is insufficient to establish adulteration under Section 2(ia)(m). (Para 14 , 18 , 19 )
7. Is the non-examination of an independent seizure witness fatal to a prosecution under the PFA Act?
No, it is not mandatory to cite an independent witness when purchasing suspected adulterated food under the PFA Act. (Para 12 )
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.:-
1. The instant criminal revisional application has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated September 22, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Nadia, Krishnagar, affirming the judgment and order dated March 24, 2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia, in case no.735C of 1997 under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act.
2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on May 16, 1997, the Sub Divisional Food Inspector, Krishnagar Sadar Sub Division, Shri Debasish Roy, visited the sweetmeat shop of the present petitioner and found that the petitioner has stored 8 kg. of Dahi (curd) for sale in several earthen pots lying in the shop. The said Food Inspector purchased 600 gms. of Dahi under proper receipt and thereafter, took one part of the sample and sent the same to the Public Analyst, Nadia, for analysis and opinion after observance of all the legal formalities. The other two parts of the sample were sent to the local (Health) authority, Sadar Sub Division, Nadia, as per the provisions of PFA, Act, 1976.
3. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, Nadia, and after getting sanction from the higher authority, a complaint was lodged before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia, against the present petitioner which was registered as Case No.735C of 1997. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and directed to issue process. After appearance before the learned Magistrate, charge was framed under Sections 19(1)(a)(ii) and 7(1) of the PFA Act against the present petitioner which was duly read over and explained to him and since he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and, accordingly, the trial commenced.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as two witnesses, one is the complainant and the other is a staff of the complainant's office. None was examined by the defence.
5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after analyzing the evidence and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, passed an order of conviction on March 24, 2000 under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) and 7(1) of the PFA Act and sentenced the present petitioner to suffer imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for another fifteen days.
6. Assailing the said order, a criminal appeal was filed before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nadia at Krishnagar, and the learned court upon hearing all the parties, affirmed the order of conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence, this revisional application has been filed before this Court.
7. The learned Senior Advocate, representing the petitioner, argued that the court of Magistrate as well as the learned appellate Court failed to take into account that no independent seizure list witness was examined and it is hit by Section 10(7) of the PFA Act as well as Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the contention of the learned Senior Advocate that there was no answer given by the prosecution as to whether the sample so collected was from one pot or from all. No inference regarding adulteration of the food can be drawn if the sample was taken from all the pitchers where the food was stored. It is further contention that ultimately the report of the analyst was that the Dahi was of low fat category and was thereby adulterated. But no such report was submitted whether any harmful ingredient was mixed and the low quantity of fat in the curd depends on the milk which was used to prepare the curd. It is further contended that low fat can never be spurious and be called as adulterated. The further argument advanced is that the possibility of losing fat from the collected Dahi of 600 gms. by the Food Inspector cannot be ruled out and during the process of churning by the Food Inspector before or after mixing the Formalin, it has hap
