Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Mill Owner’s Conviction In 25-Year-Old Mustard Oil Adulteration Case Over Conflicting Lab Reports
Benefit of doubt granted as Court finds discrepancies between Public Analyst and CFL reports, questions validity of seizure
The High Court of Calcutta, Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a mustard oil mill co-owner under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, holding that serious discrepancies in laboratory reports and doubtful seizure proceedings entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt.
The High Court also expressed serious concern about the seizure process noting that the sole independent seizure witness had admitted that he had signed the seizure list at the request of the officer without knowing its contents.
The bench found the two reports that formed the basis for conviction, to be materially inconsistent, as while the Public Analyst referred to “30 red units,” the CFL report omitted any indication of red units or blend percentage.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, observed, “It is very difficult to presume there must be a maximum or equal to the actual red units found in the sample without valid reasons or absence in the report. It would create doubt about the mixture and its percentage. Accordingly, both reports have found some vital discrepancies which go to the root of the prosecution case and the entire story of adulteration to blend some substance of sesame oil in the container found totally doubtful and discrepancies in two reports. Both reports were varied with each other. In one report, it was found that the sample mustard oil contained a blend of sesame oil, indicated with red units, whereas in the other report, no red units or mixture percentage was indicated”.
“When doubt arises in the mind of the Court, it would not be proper to convict any accused persons; rather benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the petitioner”, the bench further noted.
Advocate Dilip Kumar Samanta appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Debasish Roy appeared for the respondent.
The present matter dated back to 5-04-1997, when a Food Inspector visited the petitioner’s mustard oil mill at Sonamukhi, Bankura, collected samples of mustard oil, and sent them for analysis.
Subsequent to which the Public Analyst’s report stated that the sample was adulterated with sesame oil, indicating “30 red units”. However, when the sample was tested by the Central Food Laboratory (CFL), the report merely stated that the oil was adulterated but did not specify the red units or percentage of blending. Based on the earlier report, a case was registered against the petitioner and another partner of the firm.
Thereafter, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Sections 7(i)/16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act for allegedly selling mustard oil adulterated with sesame oil in 1999, and the Sessions Court affirmed the conviction in 2001. However, the co-accused partner was acquitted.
Now before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the certificate issued by the Central Food Laboratory (CFL), which under Section 13(3) of the PFA Act supersedes the Public Analyst’s report, did not specify the percentage of adulteration or red units. It merely stated that the sample was adulterated.
Therefore, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the mill owner and set aside the conviction and sentence. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith, subject to compliance with Section 437A CrPC.
Cause Title: Narayan Chandra Gorai v. The State of West Bengal & Another C.R.R. 1672 of 2001
Appearances:
Petitioner: Dilip Kumar Samanta, Debpriya Samanta, Prasun Mondal, Asha Kumari Manjhi, Advocates.
Respondent: Debasish Roy, PP, Saryati Datta, Eshita Dutta, Advocates.