Delhi High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal Against Acquittal in Food Adulteration Case: Upholds Double Presumption of Innocence and Rules That Variance in Public Analyst and CFL Reports Weakens Prosecution’s Case Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent in a case under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, 1954. The court upheld the Sessions Court’s order, which had set aside the Trial Court’s conviction, citing serious discrepancies in the Public Analyst’s report and the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) certificate.

The court reaffirmed the principle of “double presumption of innocence”—meaning that once an accused has been acquitted by a trial court, the burden on the prosecution in an appeal is even higher. Given the significant differences between the two reports, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Facts of the Case

1. Inspection and Sampling
   • On July 5, 1996, at around 3:00 PM, a Food Inspector conducted an inspection at a dairy located in Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
   • The respondent was allegedly conducting the dairy business, and the Food Inspector purchased a sample of cow’s milk stored in an open drum labeled as “cow’s milk”.
   • The milk was mixed with a plunger, and three equal samples were taken, sealed, and sent for analysis.
2. Initial Testing by the Public Analyst
   • One sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who found it non-compliant with prescribed standards.
   • Based on this report, prosecution sanction was obtained, and a complaint was filed under the PFA Act.
3. Trial and Conviction
   • The Trial Court convicted the respondent on February 7, 2003, and sentenced him on February 17, 2003.
   • The respondent appealed the conviction before the Sessions Court.
4. Sessions Court’s Acquittal
   • The Sessions Court, on July 1, 2008, overturned the conviction, citing discrepancies in the test reports and doubts about the representative nature of the sample.
   • The State then filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the acquittal.

Issues Before the Court

1. Was the milk sample properly homogenized and representative of the batch?
2. Did the discrepancy between the Public Analyst’s report and the CFL certificate create reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case?
3. Did the Sessions Court correctly apply the principle of “double presumption of innocence” while acquitting the respondent?

Petitioner’s Arguments (State’s Appeal)

• Improper appreciation of evidence by the Sessions Court
  • The Sessions Court failed to appreciate the testimonies of Food Inspectors who clearly explained how the sample was homogenized before collection.
  • The inspectors testified that the milk was already being sold for human consumption, indicating that it was properly mixed.
• The respondent had requested the CFL report, making it binding on him
  • Since the respondent himself sought a retest, the CFL report’s findings should be binding.
  • The CFL report confirmed that the milk was adulterated.
• Acquittal negates the PFA Act’s purpose
  • The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act aims to curb food adulteration.
  • Allowing an acquittal on technical grounds would set a bad precedent, weakening enforcement of food safety laws.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The milk sample was not properly homogenized
  • The sample was not stirred properly, and the fat content in different layers of milk could vary.
  • The test results could be unreliable due to an unrepresentative sample.
• Tampering and improper sealing
  • The sample was not properly packed and sealed, raising concerns about possible contamination or tampering.
• The respondent was not the dairy’s proprietor
  • The respondent was merely present at the dairy and not responsible for its operations.
• Acquittal was justified based on existing evidence
  • The Sessions Court correctly acquitted the respondent based on discrepancies in the reports and witness testimonies.

Analysis of the Law

1. Food Adulteration Laws and Standards

• Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, food samples must be:
  • Properly collected
  • Homogenized to ensure a representative sample
  • Accurately analyzed to determine compliance with prescribed standards

2. Standard of Proof in Criminal Law

• In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• A discrepancy in test reports can create reasonable doubt, requiring the benefit to be given to the accused.

3. Impact of Variance Between Test Reports

• The Public Analyst’s report found:
  • Fat content: 4.7% (above the prescribed 3.5% limit)
  • Milk solids non-fat: 7.53%
• The CFL report found:
  • Fat content: 3.3% (below the prescribed limit)
  • Milk solids non-fat: 6.9%
• Significant Variance:
  • The differences in fat content and milk solids suggest the sample was not properly homogenized.
  • This undermines the prosecution’s case since a non-homogenized sample cannot be considered an accurate representation of the batch.

Precedent Analysis

• State v. Ravinder Nath Chawla (2010 DHC 14382)
  • The Delhi High Court ruled that major discrepancies in Public Analyst and CFL reports indicate an unrepresentative sample.
  • Benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
• Ravi Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2022) 8 SCC 536]
  • Once an accused is acquitted, a double presumption of innocence applies.
  • Appellate courts must be slow to interfere with acquittals.
• Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. [(2020) 10 SCC 166]
  • The Supreme Court reaffirmed that benefit of doubt and double presumption of innocence must apply in acquittal cases.

Court’s Reasoning

• The Public Analyst’s report and CFL report showed substantial differences.
• Applying Ravinder Nath Chawla (2010 DHC), the court held that such variance weakens the prosecution’s case.
• Following Ravi Sharma (2022) and Anwar Ali (2020), the court applied the “double presumption of innocence” doctrine.
• The burden was on the prosecution to prove its case beyond doubt, which it failed to do.

Conclusion

• The High Court upheld the Sessions Court’s acquittal of the respondent.
• The appeal was dismissed as the variance in reports justified reasonable doubt.
• The respondent was cleared of all charges under the PFA Act.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Strengthening Protection Against Wrongful Convictions
   • Prosecution must ensure that food samples are properly homogenized and tested.
2. Emphasizing High Evidentiary Standards in Food Adulteration Cases
   • Any discrepancy between Public Analyst and CFL reports can justify an acquittal.
3. Reinforcing the Principle of “Double Presumption of Innocence”
   • Once an accused is acquitted, appellate courts must exercise caution in reversing the verdict.
4. Ensuring Due Process in Food Safety Cases
   • The judgment highlights the importance of procedural safeguards in food sampling.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Upholds Permanent Injunction: “Possession and Clear Title Established; No Suit for Declaration Required,” Rejects Vexatious Claims Based on Forged Documents