Central Food Lab Report Unreliable Due to Label Issues, Insufficient Evidence for Conviction: Calcutta High Court

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta overturns conviction in food adulteration case, highlighting procedural lapses and evidence discrepancies.

The High Court at Calcutta has overturned the conviction of Dipak Kedia in a food adulteration case, where he was previously sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment for selling adulterated mustard oil. The judgment delivered by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta highlighted significant discrepancies in laboratory reports and procedural lapses, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

The case revolves around Dipak Kedia, an employee of M/s M.K. Oil & Flour Mill, who was accused of selling adulterated mustard oil. On April 7, 2004, a sample of mustard oil was collected by the Additional Chief Medical Officer of Health (A.C.M.O.H.), Bankura. The sample was initially tested by the Public Analyst, who reported the presence of rice bran oil. However, upon re-examination by the Central Food Laboratory, the presence of rice bran oil was not confirmed, and discrepancies in the Bellier Test Temperature were noted.

Despite the conflicting reports, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura, convicted Kedia, a decision that was later upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura. Kedia then filed a criminal revisional application challenging these judgments.

The court observed significant contradictions between the reports from the Public Analyst and the Central Food Laboratory. The initial report indicated the presence of rice bran oil, while the Central Food Laboratory’s findings contradicted this. Additionally, there was a notable difference in the Bellier Test Temperatures reported: 25.5°C by the Public Analyst and 28.3°C by the Central Food Laboratory.

“Both the reports are contradictory,” the judgment stated, “which creates serious doubt about the adulteration of mustard oil collected by the official.”

The court identified several procedural lapses in the collection and testing of the mustard oil sample. Notably, there were no public witnesses present during the sample collection, violating mandatory provisions under Section 10(9) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act.

“No public witnesses were present while collecting the sample, and the sample sent to the Public Analyst could have been tampered with, leading to serious doubts about the prosecution’s case,” Justice Gupta noted.

The court also pointed out the failure to comply with mandatory provisions of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) during the trial, which compromised the fairness of the trial.

The judgment emphasized the statutory mandate under Section 13(3) of the PFA Act, which gives precedence to the Central Food Laboratory’s findings over those of the Public Analyst. Given the conflicting results, the court found it challenging to uphold the conviction.

“The report of the Directorate of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts therein,” the judgment quoted.

Additionally, the court noted the absence of mens rea on Kedia’s part, as he was merely an employee following the directions of his employer.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta remarked, “The report of the Central Food Laboratory cannot be fully relied upon because the sample of mustard oil was received in a glass bottle without the manufacturer’s label. There is no sufficient evidence brought before the Court on the basis of which the petitioner can be convicted.”

The High Court’s decision to set aside the conviction and sentence of Dipak Kedia underscores the necessity for strict adherence to procedural requirements in food adulteration cases. This judgment serves as a critical reminder of the importance of accurate evidence and procedural compliance in ensuring fair trials.

Date of Decision: 02 July, 2024

Dipak Kedia @ Deepak Kedia v. The State of West Bengal