Click the Play button to listen to article

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a sweetmeat shop owner in a 26-year-old food adulteration case, holding that the mere finding of “low fat content” in a sample of curd was insufficient to establish that the food was adulterated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Bhagirath Ghosh, who had been convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia in 2000 and whose conviction was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court in 2004.

The Court found that both the trial court and appellate court had proceeded primarily on the basis of the Public Analyst's report stating that the curd was “adulterated for low fat content”, without there being satisfactory evidence establishing that the low fat content rendered the curd adulterated within the meaning of the Act.

The prosecution case arose from an inspection conducted on May 16, 1997, when the Sub-Divisional Food Inspector visited Ghosh's sweetmeat shop and found around 8 kg of curd stored in several earthen pots.

The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of curd for Rs.15 and, after following the prescribed procedure, divided the sample into three parts. One part was sent to the Public Analyst, while the other two were forwarded to the concerned health authority.

The Public Analyst subsequently reported that the sample was “adulterated for low fat content”. Based on the report and after obtaining the requisite sanction, a complaint was lodged against Ghosh under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The trial court convicted him in March 2000 and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000. The appellate court affirmed the conviction in September 2004.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the analyst's report did not establish that the curd was spurious, harmful or unfit for human consumption. The High Court found merit in the contention.

Justice Chatterjee (Das) noted that the analyst's report merely recorded that the curd was adulterated on account of its low fat content. There was no finding that the low fat content made the curd harmful or unfit for human consumption.

The Court also noted that there was no material demonstrating that the curd was “filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed” or otherwise unfit for consumption.

“In the instant case, not a single document was found ... which contained the word like filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed to inspire confidence to hold that the curd was adulterated only due to low fat content,” the Court observed.

The Court also highlighted deficiencies in the prosecution evidence concerning the handling and analysis of the sample.

It noted that the record did not indicate the date and time when the sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The messenger through whom the sample was allegedly sent was not examined.

Significantly, the Public Analyst himself was not examined before the court to prove the report.

The Court further noted that no witness from the local health authority, where another part of the sample had been sent, was examined.

The Court also found that the record did not sufficiently establish the relevant details concerning the sealing and dispatch of the sample, including the absence of a clear indication regarding the date and time of dispatch.

The High Court examined several Supreme Court decisions cited by the petitioner, including decisions concerning the need for satisfactory evidence to establish adulteration and the application of the statutory definition of “adulterated”.

Referring to the statutory requirement under Section 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary ingredients through satisfactory evidence.

The Court observed that the two lower courts had convicted Ghosh essentially on the basis of the Public Analyst's finding that the curd contained low fat.

However, according to the High Court, that finding by itself was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

“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, according to this Court, is not sufficient to consider the same as adulterated and hence not sustainable in the eye of law,” the Court held.

The Court also took note of the extraordinary delay in the proceedings. The criminal revision had been filed in 2004 and was admitted in October that year, with the sentence stayed.

The matter remained pending for years and was eventually dismissed for default in 2019 when nobody appeared. It was restored in 2025 after the petitioner approached the Court seeking recall of the dismissal order.

The High Court noted that the revision had consequently remained pending for approximately 26 years.

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish that the curd was adulterated within the meaning of the PFA Act, the High Court allowed the revision petition.

The conviction and sentence imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia and affirmed by the appellate court were set aside.

The Court directed that the petitioner be released forthwith from the respective bail bond.

Case: BHAGIRATH GHOSH VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Case No: CRR NO.2779 of 2004

Click here to read order

Tags: