Finally, Supreme court acquitted after 38 year,Prem chand was accused of selling adulterated turmeric.
ADV. RAUF RAAZ
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL 2010 2255 Number
Case Name: PREM CHAND Vs. State
Judge’s Bench:- Justices NV Ramana, Suryakant and Krishna Murari,
The Supreme Court says that 38 years after the case was filed, Prem Chand’s turmeric was not adulterated
The trial court acquitted the businessman in 1995 itself, but on the state’s appeal, the High Court convicted him in 2009
Selling adulterated turmeric powder can cost you six months in jail or a fine of 2,000 or both. But it took 38 years to finally remove a businessman from the charge of selling adulterated turmeric powder to the judiciary.
The Supreme Court on Thursday closed the case back till 1982, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and upheld a trial court order.
After a long time the Supreme Court, accepting Premchand’s appeal, a bench of Justices NV Ramana, Suryakant and Krishna Murari, referring to the evidence on record, said:
“We note that the crossactivity of the medical officer (P.W. 2) suggests that he did not find any mite / worm in the sample when viewed with the naked eye. However, the food inspector (P.W. 1) Said sample. Sent to public analyst on next date, however, no parcel receipt was produced to that extent. However, the sample was received in the public analyst’s office on 20.08.1982 and the report was delayed. Was subsequently finalized on 07.09.1982. 18 days. There is no evidence that the samples were not tampered with in the intervening period, so the benefit of doubt accrues in favor of the accused. Also, The Public Analyst’s report does not mention that the specimen was either a “pest.” Or “ineligible for human consumption”, in the absence of such an opinion, section 2 (1A) (f) of the Prosecution Act has failed to establish the requirements.
According to the Supreme Court, the public analyst’s report did not mention that the specimen was either “infected with an insect” or “ineligible for human consumption.” All these have failed to establish the requirement of law to prove crime,
On this basis, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and upheld the order of acquittal passed by the trial court.
In fact, the trial period went on, with the trial court taking 13 years from the date of the incident to say that the trader was innocent, then on the state’s appeal, the High Court took 14 more years to convict the trader. And now the supreme court took 10 years to decide that the High Court was wrong and the trial court was right and finally the case was closed and closed.