Primary food and adulteration standards limit conviction where insect damage is not shown to be injurious or human-caused.

Turmeric fingers, as primary food in natural form, could not be treated as adulterated solely on proof of insect damage or infestation where the analyst's report did not say whether the condition was injurious to health or attributable to human agency. After the 1976 amendment, the definition of adulteration had to be read with the provisions on primary food, sub-standard quality, purity, and the proviso protecting natural deterioration beyond human control. Although the statutory standard allowed up to 5 per cent insect-damaged matter and the sample showed 7.7 per cent, the report's silence on injury to health and human agency meant the charge was not adequately made out under the amended scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether turmeric fingers, being primary food, could sustain a conviction for adulteration on the basis of insect damage and insect infestation where the Public Analyst's report did not state whether the article was injurious or non-injurious to health or whether the condition was due to human agency.

Analysis: The article in question was primary food in its natural form. After the 1976 amendment, the definition of adulteration under Section 2(ia) had to be read with the newly introduced clauses dealing with sub-standard quality and purity, the concept of primary food, and the proviso protecting primary food that fell below standard solely due to natural causes beyond human control. Although insect infestation would ordinarily attract clause (f), the amended scheme required the court to consider whether the article was primary food, whether the deviation from standard rendered it injurious to health, and whether the condition was attributable to human agency. The statutory standard for whole turmeric permitted insect-damaged matter up to 5 per cent by weight, and the analyst found 7.7 per cent insect damage, but the report was silent on injury to health and on human agency. In these circumstances, the report was insufficient to bring home the charge, and the amended provisions supporting primary food were preferred over a purely literal application of the insect-infested clause.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable and the respondent was entitled to acquittal.

---