Delhi Administration v. Vidya Gupta
Background
A Food Inspector took a sample of Ghee from a sweet shop in Delhi, and the Public Analyst found it adulterated; on the accused's request, the Central Food Laboratory Director also tested a counterpart sample and confirmed adulteration. A magistrate convicted the shop's in-charge, but the Sessions Judge acquitted him on appeal, and the High Court refused the prosecution's request for leave to appeal that acquittal, reasoning that the Ghee was only an ingredient for sweets (not itself sold) and that differing lab readings between the Public Analyst and the Director made the sample unreliable. The Delhi Administration then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that storing adulterated food for use as an ingredient in food meant for sale is itself an offence under Section 7's explanation (added by a 1976 amendment), so the "not meant for sale" defence failed. It also held that once the Director, Central Food Laboratory issues a certificate, that certificate by statute supersedes and effectively nullifies the Public Analyst's report and becomes final and conclusive evidence, so any numerical variation between the two reports is legally irrelevant, and the High Court was wrong to rely on such variation to doubt the sample's reliability. Finding the acquittal unsustainable, the Court set it aside and convicted the respondent, but given that 14 years had passed, the business had closed, and the accused was now about 70 years old, it limited the sentence to time already served. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
Lesson Learnt
Once a government food-testing certificate from the Central Food Laboratory is obtained, it legally overrides the earlier Public Analyst report and cannot be second-guessed by comparing the two reports' numbers; and storing an adulterated ingredient is an offence even if that specific item was never itself going to be sold separately.