Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act | Analyst Has To Examine If Quality Change Was Due To Natural Causes : Supreme Court

Allowing an appeal by the sweetmeat shop, the Bench composed of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian, observed that the report of the Public Analyst did not consider questions such as whether the increase in moisture content in the paneer was due to natural causes, or whether the milk fat content was unsatisfactory as a result of the quality of the milk. This is why the complaint against the shop under Section 16(1)(a)(i) was assessed as unsustainable. The court held –

"There was no whisper in the complaint or in the evidence as to whether the case would fall under the proviso. For instance, the report of the Public Analyst says that the moisture content was 77.6% and that as per the prescribed standard, it shall not contain more than 70%. But there is no indication as to whether the moisture content was more due to natural causes. Even, the milk fat content of the dry matter may depend upon the quality of the milk and this question was also not gone into."

Before travelling in appeal to the top court and after an appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court had been invoked to examine the correctness of the conviction by the Municipal Magistrate. The Calcutta High Court had upheld the conviction but reduced the quantum of punishment. Taking a completely different stand with respect to the conviction itself, the Supreme Court held –

"We are of the view that a petty shop owner has been prosecuted by making much ado about nothing. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court confirming the order of the Sessions Court and the order of the Magistrate are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs."

Case Title

M/s Bhattacharjee Mahasya & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 1800/2022 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5272/2022]

Headnotes

Adulteration – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954) – Section 16(1)(a)(i) – Section 2(ia)(m) – Definition of Adulteration – Proviso – Public Analyst report must examine whether primary foods did not meet prescribed standards or had constituents in quantities outside the permissible threshold as a result of inescapable natural causes – Whether proviso is attracted, has to be seen – Held, – There was no whisper in the complaint or in the evidence as to whether the case would fall under the proviso – Questions such as whether increase in moisture content due to natural causes, unsatisfactory milk fat content due to quality of milk, not examined by Public Analyst – Therefore, appeal allowed and conviction of sweetmeat shop under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(ia)(m) for allegedly selling "adulterated" paneer set aside.