Back
Alone Not Sufficient to Hold Curd Adulterated:
The has quashed a 26-year-old criminal conviction, ruling that the mere presence of in curd does not, by itself, constitute adulteration under the . Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) allowed the revision petition filed by Bhagirath Ghosh, a sweetmeat shop owner from Nadia district, and set aside the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts.
The Curd Controversy
The case dates back to , when the Sub-Divisional Food Inspector, Krishnagar Sadar Sub-Division, visited Ghosh's shop and found approximately 8 kg of curd stored in several earthen pots. The inspector purchased 600 grams of mixed curd for Rs.15 and, following the prescribed procedure, divided the sample into three parts. One part was sent to the , while the other two were forwarded to the .
The Public Analyst's report declared the sample “adulterated for .” Armed with this report and requisite sanction, a complaint was lodged against Ghosh. The , convicted him in , sentencing him to six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000. The , affirmed the conviction in .
Arguments Before the High Court
, representing Ghosh, contended that the analyst's report did not establish that the curd was , harmful, or . He argued that is not synonymous with adulteration, as curd's fat content naturally depends on the milk used. He also pointed to procedural lapses: no independent seizure witness was examined, the sample collection method was unclear, and the Public Analyst was never called to testify. Additionally, he highlighted that the matter had remained pending for 26 years, causing undue hardship.
The State, represented by , countered that all statutory formalities had been complied with. The Food Inspector had purchased and sealed the curd properly, and the analyst's report clearly stated the sample was adulterated. The State argued that the trial court had correctly analyzed the evidence and that the conviction should be upheld.
Legal Analysis: Low Fat Does Not Equal Adulterated
The High Court closely scrutinized the Public Analyst's report. The report merely noted “” without any finding that the curd was “” or otherwise unfit for consumption. The Court observed that under , an article is adulterated only if its quality is affected injuriously, or if it is . A mere deficiency in fat content, without evidence of harm or unfitness, cannot sustain a conviction.
The Court also found serious gaps in the prosecution's evidence. The date and time when the sample was dispatched to the Public Analyst were not recorded, the messenger who carried the sample was not examined, and the Public Analyst himself did not appear in court to prove the report. No witness from the —where the other sample parts were sent—was called either.
Relying on precedents, including , , , and , the High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the under the Act. The judgments guided that a conviction cannot be based solely on an analyst's report without showing that the food article was actually harmful or unfit.
Key Observations
In a particularly telling passage, Justice Chatterjee (Das) remarked:
“In the instant case, not a single document was found … which contained the word like to inspire confidence to hold that the curd was adulterated only due to .”
The Court further held:
“Both the learned courts only on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst that curd contained low fat, passed the order of conviction which … is not sufficient to consider the same as adulterated and hence not sustainable in the eye of law.”
The Final Verdict
Allowing the criminal revision, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the , and affirmed by the appellate court. The petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith from his bail bond. The Court also directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.
The decision underscores a crucial principle: a food article cannot be branded adulterated simply because its fat content is lower than expected. The prosecution must demonstrate actual harm or that the article is . For food businesses and enforcement agencies alike, the ruling serves as a reminder that technical compliance with sampling procedures and rigorous evidence are essential to secure convictions under food safety laws.
