Petitioners challenging criminal prosecution for food adulteration. Court held insufficient evidence to implicate manufacturers without purchase bill or cash memorandum linking them to the specific sale. Proceedings quashed.
The criminal proceedings pending as S.T.No.497/1999 against the petitioners are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU THURSDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2007 / 12TH ASWINA 1929
Crl.MC.No. 627 of 2002()
S.T.CASE NO.497/1999 OF JFCM, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER: ACCUSED 1 AND 2
BY ADV. SRI.N.A.MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI C.K.SURESH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.423/2002 IN CRL.M.C.NO.627/2002
CLOSED.
SD/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
04/10/2007
\TRUE COPY//
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Crl.M.C.No.627 of 2002-C
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioners are the nominee and the manufacturer, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.T.No.497/1999 which is the split up case from S.T.No.2339/1996 wherein the petitioners were A3 and A4.
2. It is submitted that the petitioners were prosecuted alleging
that they are manufacturers of the food article, i.e, skimmed milk powder that was purchased by the Food Inspector from the vendor, i.e, A1, of the shop in which A2 was the licencee, in S.T.No.2339/1996. A5 was subsequently impleaded in S.T.No. 2339/1996 at the instance of A1 and A2 under Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As per the judgment of the trial court dated 06/04/2001, A1 and A2 therein were acquitted on the basis of the protection under Section 19(2) P.F.A Act in view of the fact that they have proved that they have purchased the above article from A5 vide bill produced. During the pendency of the proceedings A5 died and the proceedings against him abated. The petitioners herein have also produced the copy of the complaint
Crl.M.C.No.627/2002-C
-:2:-
wherein the documents produced are specified. It is pointed out that there are no documents attached to the complaint that can implicate the petitioners herein. It is pointed out that vide proviso to Section 14 P.F.A Act, only bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by manufacturer can constitute warranty or evidence as to the sale by the manufacturer. The counsel has relied on the decision reported in G.Lakshmanan and another v. State [1998 (2) P.F.A Cases 23] wherein the court has rejected the contention that the fact that Form No.6 and notice under Section 13(2) was served upon the petitioners/manufacturers is sufficient. It was specifically held that in the absence of material in the form of a statement from the dealer, or purchase bill under Section 14A of the Act, the Food Inspector cannot come to a conclusion that the company alone is the manufacturer. The Supreme Court in Murlidhar Shyamlal and Another v. State of Assam [1996 SCC (Cri) 485] has held that the label alone is not sufficient to implicate the manufacturer and that it must be specifically held therein that the article of food sold was of the same nature and quality which it purports to be in the label. It was also held that the evidence given by the witness in
Crl.M.C.No.627/2002-C
-:3:-
the witness box that the article was of the same quality as was sold by him would not be sufficient in the absence of a cash memorandum etc. produced before the court.
I find that in the instant case the bill produced is with respect to the purchase by the vendor from the distributor and the only evidence against the petitioners herein is the label which would show the name etc. of the manufacturer. In the absence of any materials to show that the articles were purchased by the distributor from the particular manufacturer, I find that no purpose would be served by further proceeding with the matter against the petitioners herein. Hence, the proceedings pending as S.T.No.497/1999 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Malappuram, is herewith quashed.
The Crl.M.C is allowed as above.
K.R.UDAYABHANU, Judge
ms
Crl.M.C.No.627/2002-C
-:4:-
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J.
O R D E R
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners (manufacturers) could be held liable for food adulteration without a purchase bill or cash memorandum showing they supplied the goods to the vendor.
Whether the label on food articles alone constitutes sufficient evidence to implicate the manufacturer.
Whether the proceedings against the manufacturers should be quashed in the absence of material linking them to the sale.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G. Lakshmanan and another v. StateRelied on¶33
G. Lakshmanan and another v. State [1998 (2) P.F.A Cases 23]
Murlidhar Shyamlal and Another v. State of AssamRelied on¶33
Murlidhar Shyamlal and Another v. State of Assam [1996 SCC (Cri) 485] · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 1 enactments
D. Sivakumar
M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton (India) Limited
The Food Inspector, Tirur Circle
State of Kerala
K.R. Udayabhanu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
