The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a man who had been accused of carrying “misbranded bread” in his vehicle for sale, nearly 25 years after the initial incident. The acquittal comes after the court found that the food inspector involved in the seizure was not properly qualified to take samples.
The case began when food inspector Sukhwinder Singh reported intercepting a vehicle on December 22, 2000, which was carrying bread packets without an expiry date. Despite following the procedures of the Protection of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, including preparing samples and involving a witness, the trial court in August 2008 acquitted the accused, Jagdish Prasad, due to the food inspector’s lack of qualifications.
The Union Territory challenged this decision, leading to an appeal filed on May 24, 2010. However, the High Court’s recent ruling upheld the original acquittal. Justice NS Shekhawat’s bench highlighted that the Food Health Authority of Chandigarh, where the food inspector had received his training, was not authorized under the Act at that time. It was revealed that a new, properly authorized training was not provided to the inspectors until 2003.
The court emphasized the distinction between the roles of a private purchaser and a food inspector in such cases. It noted that while private purchasers do not need to declare the purpose of their purchase, food inspectors must explicitly state that samples are being taken for analysis. This legal distinction played a crucial role in the court’s decision, affirming that the food inspector’s actions were not in accordance with the legal standards required for prosecuting such cases.
