Calcutta HC sets aside a 26-year-old curd adulteration conviction, holding that low fat content alone was insufficient to prove adulteration.
The Calcutta High Court has overturned the conviction of a sweetmeat shop owner, observing that a finding of low fat content in curd, by itself, could not establish food adulteration.
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a sweetmeat shop owner in a food adulteration case that had remained pending for nearly 26 years, holding that the mere finding of “low fat content” in a sample of curd was insufficient to establish that the food item was adulterated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Bhagirath Ghosh, bringing an end to proceedings that originated more than two decades ago.
Ghosh had been convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia in 2000. The conviction was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court in 2004. Challenging the concurrent findings, Ghosh approached the High Court seeking relief in the long-pending criminal revision petition.
The central issue before the High Court was whether the analytical finding concerning the fat content of the curd sample was, by itself, sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction for adulteration.
The Court answered the question in the negative.
The High Court’s decision underlines an important principle in criminal food-adulteration prosecutions: the prosecution must establish the ingredients of the alleged offence through legally sufficient evidence. A deficiency or variation in one particular characteristic of a food sample cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the food was adulterated unless the statutory requirements are otherwise established.
The finding of “low fat content” therefore could not, standing alone, provide a sufficient foundation for holding Ghosh criminally liable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
The case also highlights the significance of scientific analysis in prosecutions involving food samples. While laboratory findings can form an important part of the prosecution case, the evidentiary value of such findings must be considered in the context of the statutory standard applicable to the alleged offence.
The Court’s ruling is particularly significant because the conviction had remained in force for several years after being recorded by the trial court. The appellate court had also affirmed the conviction in 2004, meaning that the petitioner had been contesting the matter for more than two decades before securing relief from the High Court.
The decision demonstrates that the passage of time cannot substitute for proof of the essential elements of a criminal offence. Even in cases involving public health and food safety, criminal liability must rest upon evidence that satisfies the requirements of the applicable law.
The ruling also serves as a reminder that food-adulteration laws must be enforced carefully. The objective of such legislation is to protect consumers and maintain standards of food quality, but a criminal conviction cannot be sustained merely because a sample does not conform to one particular parameter unless that finding legally establishes the offence.
For readers following developments concerning food safety, criminal law and judicial decisions, further legal updates are available through The Legal Observer and its National News section.
The Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Ghosh’s case thus reinforces the broader principle that an allegation of food adulteration must be proved in accordance with law. A finding such as low fat content may be relevant to the quality of a food product, but, without more, it cannot automatically translate into criminal culpability.
The decision brings closure to a case that began in the previous century and demonstrates the High Court’s role in examining whether a criminal conviction is supported by legally sufficient material.
Readers can follow further legal developments and court-related updates through The Legal Observer’s YouTube channel.
