A Division Bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramamsubramanian (Supreme Court) recently set aside the conviction of a person convicted for Paneer sold by him having excess moisture. 

A bench pronounced that the expert evidence did not take into consideration the proviso to Section 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which exempts adulteration due to natural causes beyond human control.

The Court observed that "An offence under Section 2(ia)(m) will be made out if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard.  However, the proviso indicates an exception."

Provisio to Section 2(is)(m) read as "Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article,   being   primary   food,   has   fallen   below   the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub­clause."

The Court noted that there was no whisper in the complaint or in the evidence as to whether the case would fall under the proviso. For instance, the report of the Public Analyst says that the moisture content was 77.6% and that as per the prescribed standard, it shall not contain more than 70%.  But there is no indication as to whether the moisture content was more due to natural causes. Even, the milk fat content of the dry matter may depend upon the quality of the milk and this question was also not gone into.

The Court expressed its opinion that "we are of the view that a petty shop owner has been prosecuted by making much ado about nothing"

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1800 OF 2022

M/S BHATTACHARJEE MAHASYA & ANR.   ...Appellant(s)
                  Vs.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.            ...Respondent(s)

Read the complete judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/11684/11684_2022_4_39_39009_Order_17-Oct-2022.pdf