Food Adulteration Case Cannot Continue Without Compliance Of Statutory Safeguards: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings pending against three individuals accused in a food adulteration case linked to a railway pantry contractor, holding that the prosecution failed to establish their responsibility for the firm's business and also did not comply with mandatory safeguards provided under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Justice Himanshu Joshi passed the order while allowing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as a connected criminal revision filed by Sharan Bihari Agrawal and others. The Court set aside the order framing charges and discharged the applicants from offences under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The matter arose from an inspection conducted on July 14, 2004, in the pantry car of the Varanasi-Pune Gyan Ganga Express. According to the prosecution, Food Inspector M.K. Gupta found nearly two kilograms of coriander powder stored in an open container and suspected it to be adulterated. A sample was collected and sent for analysis. The Public Analyst later reported that the sample was adulterated, following which sanction for prosecution was obtained and a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna.

The prosecution case was that one Brahmprakash, present in the pantry car during the inspection, identified himself as the manager of M/s R.K. Enterprises and disclosed the names of the applicants as partners of the catering firm. Based on this information, proceedings were initiated against them.

Appearing for the applicants, Advocate Shivendra Pandey argued that there was no material on record to show that the applicants were in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the firm's business at the relevant time. It was further submitted that partnership deeds placed on record demonstrated that two of the applicants were not even partners of the firm on the date of inspection. The applicants also contended that they were deprived of their statutory right under Section 13(2) of the Act because the prosecution failed to establish service of the Public Analyst's report and the accompanying notice informing them of their right to seek examination of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory.

The respondent was represented by Advocate Devendra Kumar Shukla in the revision proceedings. He opposed the petitions and argued that questions regarding partnership and responsibility for the conduct of business were matters that should be decided during trial.

After examining the record, the High Court found that the complaint contained no specific averments explaining the role played by the applicants in the affairs of M/s R.K. Enterprises. The Court observed that the complaint was based solely on information allegedly supplied by Brahmprakash and that no document had been referred to showing the applicants' responsibility for day-to-day business operations.

The Court also noted that the evidence on record did not disclose any material showing direct participation by the applicants in the alleged offence. Significantly, the partnership deeds produced by the applicants prima facie indicated that two of them were not partners at the relevant time.

On the issue of statutory compliance, Justice Joshi emphasized that Section 13(2) confers a "valuable and substantive right" on an accused person to have a counterpart sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory, whose certificate supersedes the report of the Public Analyst. The Court held that there was no satisfactory material to show compliance with this mandatory requirement.

Holding that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Court observed that "the denial of such statutory right causes serious prejudice to the defence and strikes at the root of the prosecution itself." It ultimately quashed the criminal case and discharged the applicants from all charges.

Case Title: Sharan Bihari Agrawal and Others v. M. K. Gupta with connected matter

Date of Order: June 15, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi