Court highlights procedural lapses, insufficient proof of harm, and prolonged delay in justice delivery in Bhagirath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal
In a significant judgment delivered on September 2, 2026, the Calcutta High Court quashed the conviction of Bhagirath Ghosh, the proprietor of a sweetmeat shop in Nadia, West Bengal, who was earlier convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, 1954, for allegedly selling adulterated curd. The revisional application filed by Ghosh challenged the judgment and order dated September 22, 2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia, which had affirmed his conviction under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 7(1) of the PFA Act.
The case originated from a complaint lodged after the Sub Divisional Food Inspector, Krishnagar Sadar, purchased 600 grams of curd from Ghosh's shop on May 16, 1997. The sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Nadia. The analyst's report indicated that the curd was adulterated due to low fat content. Relying solely on this report, the lower courts convicted Ghosh, sentencing him to six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.
However, the High Court, presided over by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), after a thorough review of the evidence and legal principles, found substantial lacunae in the prosecution's case. The Court noted that the conviction was based only on the analyst's report of low fat content in the curd without any proof that the curd was harmful, spurious, or unfit for human consumption. The Court observed that low fat content alone does not constitute adulteration as per the PFA Act.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out serious procedural deficiencies. Notably, no independent witness was examined to verify the seizure list, and the messenger who delivered the sample to the Public Analyst was not summoned as a witness. The Public Analyst himself did not testify in court, rendering the evidence incomplete and insufficient. The Court also expressed concern over the absence of any report from the local health authority, despite parts of the sample being sent there.
Additionally, the Court highlighted that the lower courts failed to consider or explain why the petitioner was not extended the benefit of probation under Sections 360 or 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially considering the short sentence of six months imposed on Ghosh.
The High Court also lamented the undue delay in disposing of the case, with the revisional application pending for over 26 years, adversely affecting the administration of justice.
Drawing upon precedents including Dinesh Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004), Biswanath v. State of Maharashtra (2005), Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976), and State of Delhi Administration v. Puran Mal (1985), the Court reiterated the principle that the prosecution must establish that the food item was not only adulterated but also injurious or unfit for consumption.
Concluding that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof, the Court allowed the revisional application, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner from bail bonds.
This ruling reinforces the necessity for rigorous adherence to procedural safeguards and evidentiary standards in food adulteration cases, ensuring that convictions are not based on tenuous or incomplete evidence.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Conviction under Sections 16(i)(a)(i) and 7(1) of the PFA Act set aside as prosecution failed to establish by satisfactory evidence that low-fat content in curd rendered it unfit for human consumption.
Statutory provision(s):
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(1), 2(ia)(m); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 100(4), 360, 361
Bhagirath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2974567
