The Case

On January 16, 2002, Narayana Prasad Sahu was selling chana dal in a market in Kagpur when a food inspector asked him to produce the required licence. When Sahu failed to do so, the inspector purchased a sample of the dal and sent it to the Public Analyst for examination. The report found the sample to be adulterated. On October 12, 2007, the Magistrate sentenced Sahu to six months of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1,000. Sahu appealed the decision, but the Sessions Court upheld his conviction and sentence. He subsequently filed a revision application before the High Court, which was dismissed on May 3, 2018.

The Verdict

On October 29, 2021, the Supreme Court set aside the Sessions Court’s judgment, emphasising the importance of the accused’s right to challenge a Public Analyst’s report under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

The Court noted that the Local (Health) Authority must forward a copy of the Public Analyst’s report to the person from whom the sample was collected, in the prescribed manner. The accused must also be informed that they can apply to the court within 10 days of receiving the report to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.

The Supreme Court observed that failure to provide the report could deprive the accused of the opportunity to seek further analysis, thereby affecting their right to challenge the findings and defend themselves.

The Court stated:

“Consequently, his right to challenge the report will be defeated. His right to defend himself will be adversely affected.”

Key takeaway: Providing the Public Analyst’s report is essential to safeguarding the accused’s right to a fair opportunity to challenge the findings.