Case Name: PREM CHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA
Judgement Date: 30/07/2020
Judges: N. V. Ramana, Surya Kant, Krishna Murari JJ.
The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector, along with Medical Officer, inspected the shop of the accused-appellant in the presence of the witnesses and found 10 kgs of Haldi Powder in his shop. The Food Inspector purchased 600 grams Haldi Powder out of which one sample was made and then that sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the public analyst revealed that the sample was found to contain four living mealworms and two live weevils.
Notwithstanding, upon claim, the High Court vide condemned judgment dated 09.12.2009, indicted the appealing party under Section 2 (la) (f) of the Act for selling tainted Haldi Powder and condemned to experience detainment for a half year and to pay fine of L 2,000/ – in default whereof to experience further detainment for one month under Section 16 (lA) of the Act. The High Court additionally indicted the appealing party for an offense under Section 16 (1) (an) (ii) of the Act for selling Haldi Powder without a permit and condemned to experience detainment for one month and to pay fine of L 500/ – in default whereof to experience further detainment for fifteen days.
The direction for the appealing party presented that High Court upswings Trial Court judgment of vindication into one of conviction following 27 years from the date of occurrence and 14 years after the date of the court judgment. The advice eagerly set forth that, the report of the open examiner nowhere makes reference to that the example was either ‘invaded’ or was ‘ill-suited for human utilization’. It was ultimately battled that, the appealing party went unrepresented in the High Court as the supporter speaking to the appellant didn’t show up in Court.
On the opposite, the supporter showing up for the State completely upheld the criticized request passed by the High Court and presented that example was taken from the shop of the charged appealing party which was intended for open deals and indistinguishable was seen as defiled from per the report of the open examiner. Hence, the appealing party is obligated for the offenses under Section 2 of the Act.
Also, the report of the open expert doesn’t specify that the example was either “insect plagued” or was “unsuitable for human utilization”, without such an assessment, the prosecution has neglected to set up the prerequisites of Section 2 (1a) (f) of the Act (See Delhi Administration. v. Sat Sarup Sharma, 1994). In addition, no proof has been illustrated by the indictment to demonstrate the offence under Section 16 (1) of the Act either under the watchful eye of the preliminary court or the High Court.
The Supreme Court has acquitted a man blamed for selling contaminated Haldi Powder while at long last arranging a criminal case which began 38 years ago. The Court, in addition to other things, noticed that for this situation the open investigator doesn’t make reference to that the example was either “not a proper human consumption” or was “ill-suited for human utilization”, and without such a supposition, the prerequisites of Section 2 (1a) (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, can’t be said to have been built up.
 Prem Chand v. State of Haryana, 2020 SCCOnLine SC 611.
 Delhi Administration. v. Sat Sarup Sharma, 1994 SCC (Cri.) 1720.