Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Food Adulteration Case: Raj Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The case of Raj Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh dealt with a food adulteration charge under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for selling adulterated milk and reaffirmed the principle that even marginal deviations from prescribed food standards cannot be ignored.

Background of the Case

On October 30, 1995, a food inspector collected a sample of milk from the appellant, Raj Kumar, for testing. The sample was analyzed, revealing that the milk had a fat content of 4.6% and a Milk Solid Non-Fat (MSNF) content of 7.7%, which was below the prescribed standard of 8.5%. Following this finding, the appellant was prosecuted, and after obtaining consent from the Chief Medical Officer, convicted by the trial court. The Sessions Court and the High Court subsequently upheld his conviction.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant raised several arguments against his conviction, including:

• The delay in analyzing the milk sample may have caused a drop in its MSNF content.
• There was a failure to comply with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which provides the accused with the option to send a sample to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) for re-examination.
• He was illiterate and could not sign documents, but the Food Inspector had allegedly obtained his signatures.
• Since the deviation in milk content was marginal, he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Arguments by the Respondent

The State of Uttar Pradesh countered these arguments, stating:

• The sample had been preserved with formalin, eliminating concerns about deterioration over time.
• The appellant had been given an opportunity to send the second sample to the CFL but chose not to exercise that right.
• Multiple courts found that the appellant had signed the documents, and there was no evidence to support his claim of illiteracy.
• Food adulteration laws are strict, and even slight deviations from prescribed standards render the product adulterated.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, led by Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, ruled:

“Once standards are laid down by the Legislature, those standards have to be followed. In cases of food coming under the Act, it is not required to prove that the article of food was injurious to health. Even marginal deviation from the prescribed standard cannot be ignored.”

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that minor variations should be condoned, stating:

“The Act does not provide for exemption of marginal or borderline variations from the operation of the Act. In such circumstances, to condone such variations would be to alter the standard fixed under the Act.”

The Court also dismissed the argument that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to challenge the findings. It noted that he was properly informed of his right to seek re-examination of the sample and had waived that right.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction and ordered:

• Raj Kumar’s sentence of six months imprisonment must be served as prescribed by law.
• He must surrender within four weeks to complete the remaining sentence.
• If he fails to surrender, the trial court must take appropriate action against him.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the strict enforcement of food safety standards in India. The judgment makes it clear that any deviation from prescribed food quality norms will be treated as adulteration, even if the variation is minor. It upholds consumer protection laws by ensuring that food safety standards are not compromised.

Petitioner Name: Raj Kumar.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 04-10-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Raj Kumar vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-10-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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