Court Rules Microscopic Analysis Not Recognized Under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; Non-Compliance with Mandatory Procedure Also Led to Acquittal
In a significant judgment delivered on September 10, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed the State of Maharashtra's appeal challenging the acquittal of accused persons charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act) for allegedly selling adulterated chilli powder. The trial court had acquitted the accused on grounds of lack of evidence proving adulteration beyond reasonable doubt and procedural irregularities. The High Court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the legal sanctity of tests used to establish food adulteration and strict compliance with procedural safeguards.
The case originated when a Food Inspector (PW1) inspected the accused's shop premises and seized samples of chilli powder, which were sent for laboratory analysis. The Public Analyst's report noted the presence of synthetic red and orange oil-soluble colours detected through microscopic examination. The prosecution contended that this report proved the presence of adulterants in the chilli powder, violating sections 7(i) and 7(v) read with section 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(i), and 2(ia)(m) of the PFA Act, along with rules 28 and 29 of the PFA Rules, 1955.
However, the trial court held that microscopic examination does not constitute a recognized analytical or chemical test under the PFA Act or its Rules. The court observed that the essential physical parameters of the chilli powder, such as moisture, ash content, and crude fiber, were within prescribed limits. The presence of synthetic colours was noted only via microscopic observation without quantification or corroborative chemical analysis, rendering the evidence insufficient for conviction.
The High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court precedent set in Jagdish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1981 SC 1233), which categorically stated that conviction cannot be based solely on microscopic examination without chemical analysis. The Court also referred to judgments of other High Courts, including Madurai Pandian Co-operative Mini Super Market v. State of Madurai Corporation and Niranjan G. Khatri v. State of Rajasthan, which uphold the necessity of scientifically recognized tests for establishing adulteration.
Further, the Court found procedural lapses concerning Section 13(2) of the PFA Act, which mandates that upon receipt of an adverse analyst's report, the Local Health Authority must send a copy of the report to the accused by a prescribed mode and obtain acknowledgment. The prosecution failed to produce any signed acknowledgment by the accused; instead, only a postal receipt with vague address details was presented. This non-compliance was held to have prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial.
The Court dismissed the State's appeal, agreeing with the trial court's appreciation of evidence and procedural requirements. It underscored that adherence to statutory procedures and reliance on legally recognized tests are indispensable for sustaining convictions under the PFA Act.
This judgment reinforces the principle that scientific rigor and procedural fairness are paramount in food adulteration prosecutions, protecting accused persons from wrongful convictions based on unreliable or procedurally flawed evidence.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Microscopic examination as a test for food adulteration lacks sanctity and is not recognized under the Act or by the legislature. Non-compliance with mandatory provisions such as Section 13(2) of the PFA Act prejudices the accused's rights and may lead to acquittal.
Statutory provision(s):
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Sections 2(ia)(a), 2(ia)(i), 2(ia)(m), 7(i), 7(v), 13(2), 16; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 Rules 28, 29
