Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in PFA Haldi Powder Case: No Conviction Without Analyst Opinion of “Insect Infested/Unfit” and Proof Beyond Tampering Doubt

Case Name: Prem Chand v State of Haryana
Citation: 2020 INSC 471; Criminal Appeal No. 2255 of 2010
Date of Judgment/Order: July 30, 2020
Bench: N.V. Ramana, J.; Surya Kant, J.; Krishna Murari, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the conviction for selling adulterated haldi powder under Section 2(1A)(f) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 could not be sustained where the Public Analyst’s report did not record the essential opinion that the sample was “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption,” and where the prosecution failed to dispel reasonable doubt arising from gaps in proof regarding safe custody and possible tampering during the intervening period; it further held that the conviction for selling without licence was unsustainable as the prosecution led no evidence to establish that offence.

Summary: The prosecution alleged that on 18.08.1982 the Food Inspector, along with a Medical Officer, inspected the appellant’s shop and purchased 600 grams of haldi powder from a stock of 10 kg, sealed a sample, and sent it to the Public Analyst, who later reported the presence of living meal worms and live weevils; the trial court acquitted the appellant in 1995, but the High Court reversed the acquittal in 2009 and convicted him both for selling adulterated haldi powder and for selling without licence, imposing custodial sentences and fines. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant pointed out that the Public Analyst’s report did not state that the sample was “insect infested” or “unfit for human consumption,” that the Medical Officer did not notice any worms/weevils with the naked eye, that there was no parcel receipt proving prompt dispatch as claimed, and that the report was finalised after a substantial delay after receipt, with no evidence ruling out tampering in the intervening period; the State defended the High Court’s view on adulteration. The Supreme Court scrutinised the evidentiary gaps, found that the statutory requirement under Section 2(1A)(f) was not proved in the absence of the necessary analyst opinion, held that doubts about safe custody/tampering entitled the accused to benefit of doubt, and noted the complete lack of proof regarding the “without licence” charge.

Decision: The appeal was allowed; the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s conviction and sentence, upheld the trial court’s order of acquittal, and concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the offences beyond reasonable doubt.