In a recent case concerning adulterated Haldi Powder, the court’s legal analysis played a pivotal role in determining the outcome. The lack of concrete evidence presented by the prosecution led to the appellant’s acquittal being upheld. The court’s meticulous scrutiny of the public analyst’s report, along with considerations regarding sample integrity and adherence to legal requirements, highlighted the crucial role of evidence in such cases. This case serves as a prime example of how legal scrutiny can significantly impact the verdict in food safety cases.
Facts
- The Food Inspector found 10 kgs of Haldi Powder in the appellant’s shop on 18.8.1982.
- A sample of 600 grams of Haldi Powder was purchased by the Food Inspector, and it was found to contain meal worms and weevils.
- The Public Analyst’s report dated 07.09.1982 confirmed the presence of living meal worms and weevils in the sample.
- The trial court acquitted the appellant on 31.08.1995, but the High Court convicted him on 09.12.2009 for selling adulterated Haldi Powder and selling it without a license.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Arbitration Petition Limitation Period
Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel argued that the public analyst’s report did not mention that the sample was insect-infested or unfit for human consumption.
- The appellant was unrepresented in the High Court as their advocate did not appear.
- The State’s advocate supported the High Court’s order, stating that the sample taken from the appellant’s shop for public sales was found adulterated.
- The medical officer did not find any weevils or worms in the sample upon examination.
- No parcel receipt was produced to confirm the dispatch of the sample to the public analyst on the next date.
- The delay in finalizing the report and the possibility of sample tampering during that period raised doubts benefiting the accused.
- The report of the public analyst did not explicitly state that the sample was insect-infested or unfit for human consumption, thus failing to meet the requirements of the Act.
Also Read: Analysis of High Courts’ Jurisdiction and Court Orders Under Article 142
Analysis
- No evidence has been presented by the prosecution to prove the offence under Section 16 (1) of the Act.
- The impugned order of conviction by the High Court is not sustainable due to lack of evidence.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Decision
- The order of acquittal passed by the trial court is upheld
- The appeal is allowed
Case Title: PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (2020 INSC 471)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002255-002255 / 2010
