2020 INSC 0398
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2255 OF 2010
PREM CHAND                     …APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA           …RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
N. V. RAMANA, J.
1. The   present   appeal   arises   out   of   the   impugned   judgment   dated
09.12.2009   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal no.492­DBA of 1996, whereby the
High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court acquitting the
appellant herein and convicted him for the offences under Section
2 (1a) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short,
‘the  Act’)   punishable   under   Section   16(1A)   and   Section   16(1)(a)(ii)
1 NON­REPORTABLE

of   the   Act   for   selling   adulterated   Haldi   Powder   and   selling   it
without licence.
2. The   case   of   the   prosecution   is   that,   on   18.8.1982,   at   about   11
A.M., the Food Inspector, along with Medical Officer, inspected the
shop   of   the   accused­appellant   in   the   presence   of   the   witnesses
and found 10 kgs of Haldi Powder in his shop. The Food Inspector
purchased 600 grams Haldi Powder out of which one sample was
made and then that sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst.
The   report   of   the   public   analyst   dated   07.09.1982,   revealed   that
the  sample was found to  contain  four  living  meal worms and  two
live weevils. The trial court vide order dated 31.08.1995 acquitted
the   appellant.   However,   upon   appeal,   the   High   Court   vide
impugned   judgment   dated   09.12.2009,   convicted   the   appellant
under   Section   2   (la)   (f)   of   the   Act   for   selling   adulterated   Haldi
Powder   and   sentenced   to   undergo   imprisonment   for   six   months
and   to   pay   fine   of   Rs.   2,000/­   in   default   whereof   to   undergo
further   imprisonment   for   one   month   under   Section   16   (lA)   of   the
Act.   The   High   Court   further   convicted   the   appellant   for   offence
under   Section   16   (1)   (a)   (ii)   of   the   Act   for   selling   Haldi   Powder
2

without   licence   and   sentenced   to   undergo   imprisonment   for   one
month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/­ in default whereof to undergo
further imprisonment for fifteen days.
3. The counsel for  the appellant submitted that High Court upturns
Trial   Court   judgment   of   acquittal   into   one   of   conviction     after   27
years from the date of incident and 14 years after the date of trial
court judgment. The counsel vehemently put forth that, the report
of   the   public   analyst   no   where   mentions   that   the   sample   was
either ‘ insect infested ’ or was ‘ unfit for human consumption ’. It was
lastly   contended   that,   the   appellant   went   unrepresented   in   the
High   Court   as   the   advocate   representing   the   appellant   did   not
appear in Court.
4. On   the   contrary   the   advocate   appearing   for   the   State   fully
supported   the   impugned   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   and
submitted   that   sample   was   taken   from   the   shop   of   the   accused­
appellant   which   was   meant   for   public   sales   and   the   same   was
found   to   be   adulterated   as   per   the   report   of   the   public   analyst.
3

Therefore,   the  appellant   is   liable   for   the   offences   under   Section   2
of the Act.
5. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   parties   and
carefully   perusing   the   material   available   on   record,   we   note   that
the cross­examination of the medical officer (P.W­2) reveals that he
did   not   find   any   weevils/worms   in   the   sample   on   seeing   it   with
naked   eyes.   Although,   the   food   inspector   (P.W­1)   stated   that   the
sample   was   dispatched   to   the   public   analyst   on   the   next   date,
however, no parcel receipt was produced to that extent. Although,
the   sample   was   received   in   the   office   of   the   public   analyst   on
20.08.1982   and   the   report   was   finalized   on   07.09.1982   after   the
delay  of  18  days. There is no evidence that the  samples  were not
tampered within the intervening period, therefore benefit of doubt
accrues in favor of the accused. Moreover, the report of the public
analyst   does   not   mention   that   the   sample   was   either   “insect
infested” or was “unfit for human consumption”, in the absence of
such   an   opinion,   the   prosecution   has   failed   to   establish   the
requirements   of   Section   2   (1a)(f)   of   the   Act   (See   Delhi
Administration.   v.   Sat   Sarup   Sharma ,   1994   Supp   (3)   SCC
4

324 ). Moreover, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution
to   prove   the   offence   under   Section   16   (1)   of   the   Act   either   before
the trial court or the High Court.
6. Therefore,   the   impugned   order   of   conviction   passed   by   the   High
Court   is   not   sustainable   for   the   aforementioned   reasons.   We   set
aside   the   same   and   uphold   the   order   of   acquittal   passed   by   the
trial court. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
    …..……................J.
       (N. V. RAMANA)
    …...…….................J.
   (SURYA KANT)
    ……..………............J.
         (KRISHNA MURARI)
NEW DELHI;                                                                          
JULY 30, 2020. 
5