Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Food Adulteration Case After 27 Years

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Prem Chand vs. State of Haryana, set aside the conviction of the appellant for selling adulterated turmeric (Haldi) powder under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The judgment highlighted critical lapses in the prosecution’s case, including procedural delays, lack of conclusive evidence, and improper handling of food samples. The Court reaffirmed the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The case arose from an incident in 1982, where a food inspector collected a sample of turmeric powder from the appellant’s shop. Upon analysis, the sample was found to contain live worms and weevils, leading to prosecution under food adulteration laws. The trial court acquitted the appellant in 1995, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned the acquittal in 2009, sentencing the appellant to imprisonment and a fine. The Supreme Court, considering the prolonged delay and inconsistencies in evidence, set aside the conviction in 2020.

Background of the Case

The prosecution’s case was that on August 18, 1982, at approximately 11:00 AM, a food inspector, along with a medical officer, visited the appellant’s shop in Haryana and found 10 kilograms of turmeric powder stored for sale. The food inspector purchased 600 grams of the powder as a sample and sent it for analysis. The public analyst’s report, dated September 7, 1982, confirmed the presence of four live mealworms and two live weevils in the sample.

The trial court, in its judgment dated August 31, 1995, acquitted the appellant, citing procedural lapses and lack of evidence. However, the High Court reversed this decision in December 2009, convicting the appellant under Sections 2(1a)(f), 16(1A), and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment along with a fine. The appellant challenged this conviction in the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The appellant’s counsel argued:

• The High Court overturned the trial court’s acquittal after 27 years from the date of the incident and 14 years after the trial court’s judgment, causing undue prejudice to the appellant.
• The public analyst’s report did not state that the sample was ‘insect-infested’ or ‘unfit for human consumption.’
• The medical officer who accompanied the food inspector did not notice any worms or weevils in the turmeric powder during the inspection.
• The food sample was sent for analysis only on August 20, 1982, two days after collection, and the analyst’s report was finalized on September 7, 1982, raising concerns about sample integrity.
• There was no conclusive evidence proving that the appellant was selling the turmeric powder without a valid license.
• The appellant was unrepresented in the High Court appeal as his advocate failed to appear, depriving him of a fair hearing.

Arguments of the Respondent

The State of Haryana argued:

• The food inspector lawfully collected the sample from the appellant’s shop, and the public analyst’s report confirmed adulteration.
• The appellant was found selling turmeric powder without a valid license.
• The presence of live insects in the sample made it adulterated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
• The High Court correctly reversed the trial court’s acquittal and imposed punishment in accordance with the law.

Supreme Court’s Key Findings

1. Procedural Lapses and Delay

The Court emphasized that the conviction came 27 years after the alleged offense and 14 years after the trial court’s acquittal, making a fair trial difficult. The Court observed:

“Justice delayed is justice denied. Reversing an acquittal after such a prolonged delay, without strong evidence, can cause severe injustice to the accused.”

2. Doubt on Sample Integrity

The Supreme Court noted that the food sample was dispatched two days after collection and was analyzed 18 days later. There was no evidence proving that the sample remained untampered. The Court ruled:

“In the absence of clear evidence ensuring the integrity of the sample, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.”

3. Public Analyst’s Report Lacked Clarity

The Court pointed out that the analyst’s report did not explicitly state that the sample was ‘insect-infested’ or ‘unfit for human consumption.’ It relied on a precedent set in Delhi Administration v. Sat Sarup Sharma, where a similar omission led to acquittal. The Court held:

“A mere presence of insects, without a clear declaration of unfitness for consumption, does not automatically warrant conviction under food adulteration laws.”

4. Lack of Evidence for Selling Without a License

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to produce any concrete evidence proving that the appellant was selling turmeric without a license. It ruled:

“A charge under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act must be substantiated with clear evidence, which is absent in the present case.”

5. Violation of Fair Trial Principles

The Court criticized the High Court for convicting the appellant in his absence, as his counsel failed to appear. It stressed:

“Every accused has the fundamental right to legal representation. A conviction in the absence of the accused’s advocate raises serious questions about fairness and due process.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court:

• Allowed the appeal.
• Set aside the High Court’s conviction order.
• Reinstated the trial court’s acquittal judgment.
• Held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Delayed convictions, especially after decades, can be overturned if they cause undue prejudice to the accused.
• The integrity of food samples must be ensured and documented to sustain convictions under food adulteration laws.
• A food analyst’s report must explicitly state whether a sample is unfit for human consumption.
• The right to legal representation is fundamental, and courts must ensure fair hearings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness, timely prosecution, and adherence to evidence-based convictions. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving food adulteration laws, reinforcing that convictions must be based on conclusive proof and not on procedural assumptions.

Petitioner Name: Prem Chand.
Respondent Name: State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Krishna Murari.
Place Of Incident: Haryana.
Judgment Date: 30-07-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Prem Chand vs State of Haryana Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-07-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in unfair trade practices
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category