Microscopic Examination Is Not An Analytical Or Chemical Test For Proving Food Adulteration: Bombay High Court

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against a Judicial Magistrate’s judgment acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Rules 28 and 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

A Bench of Justice Abhay S. Waghwase observed: “... there is no error on the part of learned trial court in precluding the results which were yielded on microscopic examination as, neither the very Act nor legislature provides or acknowledges such test to be carried out or relied. Microscopic examination is not analytical test or chemical analysis test, and as such, has no sanctity.”

Additional Public Prosecutor Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti appeared for the State. Advocate C.C. Deshpande, appearing for Advocate C.R. Deshpande, represented the respondents.

Background

A Food Inspector visited the premises where food articles, including chilli powder, were being manufactured and sold. He collected a sample of chilli powder and sent it for analysis after completing the prescribed procedure.

The Public Analyst reported that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The report recorded chilli structure on microscopic examination and stated that synthetic red and orange oil-soluble colour had been detected. Following consent from the competent authority, a complaint was instituted against the vendor and proprietor.

The prosecution examined the Food Inspector, the Chief Officer of the municipal body and an employee of its dispatch section. The Trial Court, after considering their evidence, acquitted the accused.

In appeal, the State argued that the Trial Court had misread the evidence and erred in holding that microscopic examination was impermissible. The accused supported the acquittal and relied upon the deficiencies found in the analyst’s report and non-compliance with the statutory procedure.

Court’s Observations

The High Court compared the Public Analyst’s findings with the standards prescribed for chilli powder. It found that the sample’s moisture, total ash, ash insoluble in dilute hydrochloric acid, non-volatile ether extract and crude fibre were all within the permissible limits.

The Court observed: “On carefully going through the report under question, it is noticed that, essential parameters are within permissible limit. However, analyst has reported that on microscopic examination of chilli powder, he noticed synthetic viz red and orange oil soluble colour.”

The Court noted that the relevant entry in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, required chilli powder to be free from mould, insects, rodent contamination, dirt, extraneous colouring matter, mineral oil and other harmful substances. However, the analyst had not found any extraneous matter or recorded the percentage of the alleged synthetic colour.

The Court remarked: “However, here, the analyst has not noticed any extraneous matter or material and what he reported is finding ‘synthetic viz red and orange oil soluble colour’ on microscopic examination. Even on microscopic analysis, exact percentage has not been recorded by the analyzer.”

Referring to Jagdish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1981), the Court noted that the Supreme Court had refused to sustain a food-adulteration conviction where the analyst conducted only a microscopic examination and not the required chemical test.

The Supreme Court had held: “Items A.05.06 and A.05.06.01 of App.B would show that the percentage of the various ingredients such as ash, insoluble in HCL, or volatile oil or moisture in the sample of Dalchini, cannot be ascertained with any degree of accuracy by mere ocular examination under a microscope. Chemical tests including treatment of the ash in the sample with Hydrochloric Acid would be a must.”

The High Court also referred to Madurai Pandian Co-operative Mini Super Market, Madurai and Others v. State by Food Inspector, Madurai Corporation (1988) and Niranjan G. Khatri and Others v. State of Rajasthan (2012), which had taken a similar view.

The Court separately considered compliance with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The provision required the Local Health Authority, after the institution of prosecution, to forward the Public Analyst’s report to the accused and inform them of their right to apply within ten days for analysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory.

Although the Chief Officer claimed compliance and stated that an acknowledgement signed by the accused would be produced, no such acknowledgement was placed on record. The dispatch-section witness produced only a postal receipt containing a vague address.

The Court observed: “Postal address of accused is not appearing therein and therefore, mere production of copy of covering letter is not sufficient compliance and law to this extent has been touched and dealt by this High Court at Principal Seat in the case of Pimpri Chinchwad Nagarpalika v. Giriraj Chiranjilal Sharma and another [1998 Cri.L.J. 4354] while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 1985, as well as in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vinayak Mahadeorao Waze and another 2005 Cri.L.J. 2100 wherein it has been categorically held that mere production of copy of covering letter is not sufficient evidence of delivery and Rule 9(A) to have not been complied with.”

The Court held that the failure to comply with the mandatory procedure had prejudiced the accused: “Therefore, due to such non compliance of mandatory procedure, definitely prejudice has been caused to the accused before learned trial court.”

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court found no infirmity or illegality in the Trial Court’s appreciation of the evidence. It upheld the acquittal and dismissed the State’s criminal appeal.

Cause Title: State of Maharashtra v. Gorakh Arjun Marathe & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:41740)

Appearances

Appellant: Additional Public Prosecutor Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti

Respondents: Advocate C.C. Deshpande, appearing for Advocate C.R. Deshpande

Click here to read/download Judgment