Failure to prove sample integrity and examine the Public Analyst justifies acquittal in adulteration prosecutions.

On 15 November 1977, the Food Inspector (P.W.1) inspected the respondents’ mill and allegedly collected a sample of mustard oil.

The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, whose report stated that the oil was highly adulterated and unfit for human consumption.

A prosecution was thereafter instituted, and the respondents were charged under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Trial Court, in Case No. 509D of 1977, acquitted the respondents on 20 September 1984.

The Calcutta Municipality/KMC preferred the present appeal against the acquittal.

The prosecution examined the Food Inspector, a seizure witness (P.W.2), and one other witness, but did not examine Dr. A.K. Chanda, who had accompanied P.W.1 during the inspection, or A. Mukherjee, the Public Analyst who prepared the report.

The seized mustard oil was also not produced before the Trial Court.

P.W.2 stated that the sampling mug was old and had not been checked in his presence, and that he signed the seizure papers later at his shop.

Whether the prosecution established, through reliable and legally sufficient evidence, that the sample allegedly collected from the respondents’ mill was adulterated and unfit for human consumption.

Whether the non-examination of the Public Analyst and the officer accompanying the Food Inspector, together with the non-production of the seized oil and alleged irregularities in sampling and seizure, materially undermined the prosecution case.

Whether the Trial Court’s order of acquittal disclosed such perversity or manifest error as to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal.

The prosecution bears the primary burden of proving every ingredient of the alleged criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt and must establish the evidentiary foundation, identity and integrity of the sample relied upon.

A scientific or expert report is not, by its mere marking as an exhibit, insulated from scrutiny where its maker is not examined and the accused is thereby deprived of an opportunity to test its basis and methodology.

In a prosecution founded on adulteration, the prosecution must satisfactorily prove the collection, preservation, chain of custody and connection of the analysed sample with the commodity allegedly seized.

On an appeal against acquittal, although the appellate court may reappraise the evidence, interference is unwarranted where the Trial Court’s view is a reasonably possible view and the accused continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence.

The Public Analyst’s report was a central link in the prosecution case, yet its maker, A. Mukherjee, was neither cited nor examined, leaving the respondents unable to test the opinion through cross-examination.

The non-examination of Dr. A.K. Chanda deprived the prosecution of corroboration regarding the inspection, sampling and seizure.

The evidence of P.W.2 created further doubt: the mug used for sampling was old and unchecked in his presence, raising a possibility of contamination, while his later signing of the seizure papers weakened the reliability of the alleged seizure proceedings.

The prosecution also failed to produce the seized mustard oil or explain how the identity and integrity of the analysed sample were maintained.

The documents allegedly placed before the competent authority for sanction or consent to prosecute were likewise not produced.

These deficiencies, considered cumulatively, prevented the prosecution from establishing the adulteration charge beyond reasonable doubt.

The respondents’ failure to effectively challenge the analyst’s report could not cure the prosecution’s failure to prove its foundational facts.

It found that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged adulteration and the integrity of the sample through reliable and complete evidence.

The Trial Court’s acquittal was held to be a reasonably possible and legally sustainable view, not perverse or manifestly erroneous.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20 September 1984 in Case No. 509D of 1977 were affirmed.

The Trial Court Records were directed to be transmitted to the learned Trial Court.