The Feast That Made Sixty-Two People Sick
At a village feast in Peddapuram on Sunday, about 140 guests ate rice, chicken curry, curd rice and a sweet prepared the previous evening and left standing in the open. Between 3 and 9 hours after the meal, 62 people developed sudden vomiting, abdominal cramps and loose stools. An 8-year-old with repeated vomiting is drowsy, and a 70-year-old is clinically dehydrated. Two elderly people died at home before reaching the primary health centre. A relative tells the Sub-Inspector that the cook's hands "smelled of pesticide" and demands that the cook be arrested for poisoning. The medical officer records that patients' pupils are normal, with no excessive salivation, no muscle twitching, no slow pulse and no garlic-like odour; most recover within 12 hours on fluids. Leftover chicken curry, curd rice, a borewell water sample and two used plates are still on the premises. The cook has no known enmity with the family, and the pesticide container in his shed is sealed and full.
1. Compare food-borne intoxication with organophosphate poisoning and decide which hypothesis the evidence supports, with reasons.
Read the worked answer
Incubation period: vomiting beginning 3–9 hours after a meal fits preformed toxins - Staphylococcus aureus (roughly 2–6 hours) and Bacillus cereus (1–6 hours). Invasive bacterial food poisoning such as Salmonella usually takes 12–72 hours, so it is less consistent, though not excluded. Syndrome: organophosphate poisoning produces a cholinergic crisis - pin-point pupils, profuse salivation and lacrimation, bronchorrhea, slow pulse, muscle fasciculations, weakness, and a garlic-like odour. The medical officer found none of these, and recovery within 12 hours on fluids alone is not the natural course of significant pesticide poisoning. Physical evidence: a sealed, full container in the cook's shed argues against use; a smell on the hands is not evidence of ingestion by 62 people. Conclusion: food-borne intoxication from food kept unrefrigerated overnight is overwhelmingly the better hypothesis. But it should be confirmed and the alternative excluded by laboratory analysis, not settled by argument - the pesticide screen is still done, because two deaths require the possibility to be closed out with evidence.
2. Set out the sampling and evidence plan, including what goes to which laboratory.
Read the worked answer
What to collect: leftover chicken curry and curd rice; the sweet; vomitus and stool samples from 5–6 active cases; rectal swabs where stool is not available; about one litre of borewell water and any stored drinking water; swabs from the two plates; and, if autopsy is conducted on the two deaths, gastric contents and blood. Packaging: sterile, leak-proof containers; refrigerate at 4°C, do not freeze; label each with case or food item, place, date and time of collection, and collector's name; seal and obtain the signature of two independent witnesses. Split samples: one set to the district public health laboratory for culture and toxin identification; a parallel set to the forensic science laboratory for pesticide and chemical screening, so that both hypotheses are tested and the defence cannot later allege that the samples were exhausted. Documentation: seizure list or mahazar with witnesses, a chain-of-custody form recording every handover, and photographs of the kitchen and storage before anything is moved. Why: an outbreak case collapses in court when the sample is a single unlabelled bottle carried in a constable's pocket; the split-sample and chain-of-custody discipline is what makes the laboratory report admissible and usable.
3. Should the cook be arrested now? State the investigative and public-health steps that come first.
Read the worked answer
No arrest on the present material. A relative's report of a smell, without more, does not amount to reasonable suspicion; arresting the cook would be a decision taken to satisfy a crowd, and it would be indefensible once the laboratory report arrives. The statutory test for arrest is not met, and the offence, if any, will turn on analysis and records, not on custody. Investigation first: verify the pesticide container - seal intact, quantity, purchase record; collect the cook's clothing and hand-wash samples for chemical analysis; record his statement and the kitchen staff's; seize the food and the utensils; and question who prepared, transported and stored the food and for how long. Public health first: alert the district health authorities for an outbreak investigation, stop the kitchen, do active case search in the village, ensure oral rehydration and referral for the drowsy child and dehydrated elderly patient, and have the two deaths medically reviewed for cause. Communication: tell the public that samples have gone for testing and that no cause is being declared until reports arrive. Announcing "pesticide poisoning" or "food poisoning" prematurely is how rumours, and later contradictions in court, are created.