'Seizure Witness Turning Hostile, Conflicting Test Reports Create Doubt': Calcutta HC Acquits Man In 25-Yr-Old Mustard Oil Adulteration Case
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a mustard oil mill co-owner in a decades-old food adulteration case, holding that doubtful seizure proceedings and inconsistent laboratory reports strike at the root of the prosecution's case and make conviction unsafe. The Court reiterated that when material discrepancies arise in expert evidence and seizure is not properly proved, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta allowed a criminal revision filed by Narayan Chandra Gorai and quashed concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court which had convicted him under Sections 7(i)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine. The Court restored the long-pending revision after condoning delay in seeking recall of its earlier dismissal for default.
The prosecution case dated back to April 1997, when a Food Inspector inspected the petitioner's mustard oil mill at Sonamukhi, Bankura, collected samples of mustard oil, and sent one sample for analysis. The Public Analyst reported that the oil was adulterated with sesame oil and noted 30 red units. Based on this, a complaint was filed and the Trial Court convicted the petitioner in 1999, a finding later affirmed by the Sessions Court in 2001.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the conviction was legally unsustainable as the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) certificate, which carries statutory primacy and supersedes the Public Analyst's report under Section 13(3) of the Act, did not specify the percentage or extent of adulteration. It merely indicated a positive result without quantification. It was further argued that the independent seizure witness did not support the prosecution and admitted that he had signed the seizure list without knowing its contents, thereby rendering the search and seizure itself doubtful.
Accepting these submissions, the High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the prosecution sought to prove seizure. The Court noted that the independent witness “washed out the whole case” by stating that he was unaware of the seizure and had signed the document at the officer's request. In such circumstances, the Court observed, the entire search and seizure became suspicious.
The Court also flagged contradictions between the two expert reports. While the Public Analyst mentioned the presence of sesame oil with quantified red units, the CFL report omitted any such specification. The Court held that merely stating that the oil was adulterated without indicating the standard or percentage was insufficient. It observed that “the Court cannot presume the percentage of the blend of mustard oil,” and it would be unsafe to assume that the red units exceeded permissible limits without clear findings.
Holding that these discrepancies “go to the root of the prosecution case,” the Court said the variation between the two reports created serious doubt about the alleged adulteration. When such doubt exists, conviction cannot be sustained. The Court reiterated that criminal jurisprudence requires the benefit of doubt to be extended to the accused.
Consequently, the High Court set aside both the 1999 judgment of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate and the 2001 appellate judgment of the Sessions Court. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case, upon executing a bond under Section 437A CrPC.
Case: Narayan Chandra Gorai Versus The State of West Bengal & Another
Case No: C.R.R. 1672 of 2001