The Bombay High Court has held that microscopic examination is not an analytical or chemical analysis test and cannot be relied upon to establish food adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court observed that the Act does not provide for or acknowledge microscopic examination as a test and held that the results of such examination had no sanctity.

Justice Abhay S. Waghwase was hearing an appeal against the judgment of the JMFC, Nandurbar, which had acquitted the accused offences punishable under Section 16 of the PFA Act. The prosecution case was that the accused were involved in manufacturing and selling food articles like chilli powder and that a sample collected from their premises did not conform to the prescribed standards, based on which charges were framed against the accused.

The State contended that the trial Court had erred in holding that microscopic testing was not permissible and relied upon the PFA Rules, 1955 deals with chillies, providing that the produce has to be free from added colouring matter, coating of mineral oil and other harmful substances.

The Court noted that the essential parameters in the Public Analyst's report were within the permissible limits, but the analyst had reported that on microscopic examination of chilli powder, synthetic red and orange oil soluble colour were visible.

The Court observed that the Analyst did not report the exact percentage and no extraneous matter or material had been noticed.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Jagdish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that the trial Court committed no error in excluding the results yielded from microscopic examination. It observed:

“… there is no error on the part of learned trial court in precluding the results which were yielded on microscopic examination as, neither the very Act nor legislature provides or acknowledges such test to be carried out or relied. Microscopic examination is not analytical test or chemical analysis test, and as such, has no sanctity.”

The Court further found non-compliance with Section 13(2) of the PFA Act. Although the Chief Officer claimed its compliance, the Court noted that the acknowledgement of receipt by the accused had not been produced and the postal receipt merely contained a vague address. It held that mere production of copy of covering letter is not sufficient compliance.

The Court held that this non-compliance with the mandatory procedure had caused prejudice to the accused. It accordingly dismissed the State's appeal.

Case Title: The State of Maharashtra v. Gorakh Arjun Marathe [Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2006]

Click Here To Read/Download Order