Orissa High Court converts man’s jail term to Rs 500 fine in 1997 adulterated dal case

Justice V Narasingh noted that the evidence was assessed properly and did not require any interference.

On December 6, 1997, at about 4.30 pm, the then food inspector for Sundargarh district, accompanied by the food peon, visited the grocery shop of the accused. The initial inspection found the masoor dal and jeera kept for sale to be adulterated.

After following all legal formalities, the inspector served a notice and collected samples. He purchased 750 grams of masoor dal and 450 grams of jeera on payment of Rs 40.5. The samples were divided into three equal parts, sealed and labelled in the presence of the accused, and two sealed samples were sent to a public analyst, and the other samples were sent to the Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization (CDMO), Sundargarh.

It was submitted before the court that, as per the public analyst, the jeera sample was not adulterated but the masoor dal sample was adulterated with khesari dal. The accused challenged this report, but the adulteration was further confirmed by the Central Food Laboratory, Mysuru.

On April 17, 2000, the trial court held the accused guilty of selling or storing bad food under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1,000. The conviction was further confirmed by the district and sessions court by order on September 25, 2002.

‘Evidence assessed incorrectly’

Since no one appeared on behalf of the convict, the high court appointed advocate P S Mohanty as Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) to represent him. Mohanty submitted that the trial court incorrectly evaluated the evidence and hence the high court must interfere. The counsel said that replacing the prison sentence with a fine would serve the ends of justice.

Public prosecutor advocate S Panigrahi argued that no interference was required by the high court since the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Jail term replaced with fine

The high court noted that the evaluation of the evidence was not done in an unreasonable manner and no interference was required. Keeping in view that the incident took place in 1997, the nature of the allegations against the convict, and the arguments of the advocates, it agreed with the suggestion of advocate Mohanty and held that replacing the jail term with a fine would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the high court set aside the man’s jail term and directed that the fine be reduced to Rs 500. It also ordered that the fine must be deposited in the trial court within two months, and if the order is not followed, then the convict must go to jail for three days.