LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the presence of insects in food items automatically constitutes adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: Prem Chand vs. State of Haryana. Judgment Date: July 30, 2020
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: July 30, 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 557
Judges: N. V. Ramana, J., Surya Kant, J., Krishna Murari, J.
Can a person be convicted for selling food items containing insects without explicit evidence that the food is “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption”? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, overturning a High Court judgment that had convicted an individual for selling adulterated Haldi (turmeric) powder. This judgment highlights the importance of strict adherence to the requirements of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the need for clear evidence to establish guilt. The bench was composed of Justices N. V. Ramana, Surya Kant, and Krishna Murari, with the judgment authored by Justice N. V. Ramana.
Case Background
On August 18, 1982, a Food Inspector, accompanied by a Medical Officer, inspected the shop of Prem Chand (the appellant) and found 10 kgs of Haldi powder. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of Haldi powder, took a sample, sealed it, and sent it to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst’s report, dated September 7, 1982, stated that the sample contained four living meal worms and two live weevils. The Trial Court acquitted Prem Chand on August 31, 1995. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversed this decision on December 9, 2009, convicting Prem Chand under Section 2(1a)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated Haldi powder and for selling it without a license.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 18, 1982 | Food Inspector and Medical Officer inspected Prem Chand’s shop and collected a sample of Haldi powder. |
| September 7, 1982 | Public Analyst’s report revealed the presence of living meal worms and weevils in the Haldi powder sample. |
| August 31, 1995 | The Trial Court acquitted Prem Chand. |
| December 9, 2009 | The High Court of Punjab and Haryana convicted Prem Chand. |
| July 30, 2020 | The Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court’s decision and upheld the Trial Court’s acquittal. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court acquitted the appellant, Prem Chand. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in appeal, reversed the trial court’s decision and convicted Prem Chand under Section 2(1a)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated Haldi powder and under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act for selling it without a license.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 2(1a)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which defines an adulterated food item. According to the Act, a food item is considered adulterated:
“if the article consists, in whole or in part, of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption.”
The Supreme Court also considered Section 16(1A) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which deal with the penalties for selling adulterated food and selling food without a license, respectively.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the High Court overturned the Trial Court’s acquittal after a significant delay of 27 years from the incident and 14 years from the trial court’s judgment.
- The appellant contended that the Public Analyst’s report did not state that the sample was “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption.”
- The appellant highlighted that he was unrepresented in the High Court.
State’s Arguments:
- The State argued that the sample was taken from the appellant’s shop, which was intended for public sale.
- The State submitted that the Public Analyst’s report confirmed the presence of insects, indicating that the Haldi powder was adulterated.
- The State contended that the appellant was liable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
| Appellant’s Submissions | State’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| Delay in High Court’s decision | Sample taken from shop for public sale |
| Public Analyst’s report did not explicitly mention “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption” | Public Analyst’s report confirmed presence of insects |
| Appellant was unrepresented in the High Court | Appellant liable under Section 2 of the Act |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Trial Court’s order of acquittal.
- Whether the presence of insects in a food sample automatically constitutes adulteration under Section 2(1a)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, without explicit mention that the sample was “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption.”
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the Trial Court’s order of acquittal. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in overturning the Trial Court’s order of acquittal. |
| Whether the presence of insects in a food sample automatically constitutes adulteration under Section 2(1a)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. | The Supreme Court held that the presence of insects alone is not sufficient to prove adulteration. The report must explicitly state that the sample was “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption.” |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authority:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Delhi Administration v. Sat Sarup Sharma, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 432 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the Public Analyst’s report must explicitly state that the sample was “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption” to establish adulteration under Section 2(1a)(f) of the Act. |
The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 2(1a)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Defines adulterated food.
- Section 16(1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Specifies the penalty for selling adulterated food.
- Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Specifies the penalty for selling food without a license.
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that High Court upturned Trial Court’s acquittal after a long delay. | The Court noted the delay but did not base its decision solely on this point. |
| Appellant’s submission that the Public Analyst’s report did not state that the sample was “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption.” | The Court agreed with this submission and held it to be crucial for establishing adulteration. |
| Appellant’s submission that he was unrepresented in the High Court. | The Court acknowledged this point but did not base its decision solely on this. |
| State’s submission that the sample was taken from the appellant’s shop for public sale. | The Court acknowledged this fact but emphasized that the sample must be proven to be adulterated. |
| State’s submission that the Public Analyst’s report confirmed the presence of insects. | The Court agreed that insects were present but emphasized that the report must state the sample was “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption” to prove adulteration. |
| State’s submission that the appellant was liable under Section 2 of the Act. | The Court disagreed, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the requirements of Section 2(1a)(f) of the Act. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Delhi Administration v. Sat Sarup Sharma, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 432* to emphasize that the Public Analyst’s report must explicitly state that the sample was “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption” to establish adulteration under Section 2(1a)(f) of the Act.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of explicit statements in the Public Analyst’s report that the Haldi powder was “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption.” The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to meet the requirements of Section 2(1a)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court also noted that there was no evidence to prove the offense under Section 16(1) of the Act. The court also considered the delay in the High Court’s decision and the fact that the appellant was unrepresented in the High Court, although these were not the primary reasons for the decision.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of explicit statement in Public Analyst’s report | 40% |
| Failure to meet requirements of Section 2(1a)(f) of the Act | 30% |
| Lack of evidence to prove offense under Section 16(1) of the Act | 20% |
| Delay in High Court’s decision and lack of representation of appellant | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order of conviction was not sustainable. The Court emphasized that the Public Analyst’s report did not explicitly state that the sample was “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption,” which is a requirement under Section 2(1a)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court stated:
“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.”
The Court also noted that there was no evidence to prove the offense under Section 16(1) of the Act. The Court stated:
“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.”
The Supreme Court also observed:
“There is no evidence that the samples were not tampered within the intervening period, therefore benefit of doubt accrues in favor of the accused.”
The Court, therefore, set aside the High Court’s order of conviction and upheld the Trial Court’s order of acquittal. The bench was unanimous in its decision.
Key Takeaways
- The presence of insects in a food sample does not automatically constitute adulteration under Section 2(1a)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
- The Public Analyst’s report must explicitly state that the sample is “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption” to prove adulteration.
- The prosecution must establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- This judgment reinforces the need for strict adherence to procedural and evidentiary requirements in food adulteration cases.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the presence of insects in a food sample is not sufficient to prove adulteration under Section 2(1a)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, unless the Public Analyst’s report explicitly states that the sample is “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption.” This clarifies the interpretation of the provision and emphasizes the need for specific findings in the Public Analyst’s report. This judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Prem Chand vs. State of Haryana overturns the High Court’s conviction, emphasizing the importance of explicit findings in the Public Analyst’s report to establish food adulteration. The judgment highlights that the mere presence of insects is not sufficient evidence of adulteration; the report must state that the food is “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption.” This ruling underscores the need for strict adherence to legal requirements in food safety cases.
Source: Prem Chand vs. State of Haryana