Dismissed

K.G.James v. Food Inspector

Kerala HC11 Feb 2014Crl.MC/2643/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition seeking to quash a prosecution for selling misbranded food. The court held that while the complaint lacked a detailed explanation of misbranding, it cited specific rules violated and included label details, requiring the trial court to decide the authenticity of the violation.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking to quash the prosecution complaint was dismissed.

K.G.James Vs Food Inspector — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/22ND MAGHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2643 of 2012 ()

¶6

C.C.NO.1596/2008 ON TE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

K.G.JAMES,

¶9

KALLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., PROPRIETOR, FOOD INDIA PRODUCT, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

FOOD INSPECTOR, KOCHI CIRCLE, TRIPUNITHURA-682307.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REP; BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 2643 of 2012 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES :

¶20

I COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. II COPY OF THE ANALYST REPORT.

¶21

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES : NIL

¶22

// True Copy // P.A. To Judge

¶23

DSV/18/02

¶24

P. UBAID, J.

¶25

Crl.M.C.No. 2643 of 2012

¶26

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2014

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The petitioner herein has been facing a prosecution under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 (ii) and 2 (ix) (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short ‘the PFA Act’) read with Rules 37 B and 49 (19) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short ‘the PFA Rules), on the allegation that on 06.02.2008, he sold misbranded food article, by name “Ragivitta”, to the Food Inspector. The said prosecution is sought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the Food Inspector has not explained the alleged misbranding in the complaint and that the label affixed on the food sample perfectly conforms to the requirements under the Rules.

¶29

Section 2 (ix) of the PFA Act defines misbranding,

¶30

and the misbranding alleged in this case comes under Clause (k) that the food article was not seen labelled in accordance

¶31

Crl.M.C.No. 2643 of 2012 2

¶32

with the requirements of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 7 (ii) of the PFA Act prohibits sale of any misbranded food article, and Section 16 (1) (a) (i) prescribes the punishment of the said offence.

¶33

On a perusal of the case records, this Court finds that the offence alleged in this case by the Food Inspector is misbranding by way of violation of Rules 37 B and 49 (19) of the PFA Rules.

¶34

Rule 37 B of the PFA Rules provides that article of infant milk substitute shall be manufactured for sale, exhibited for sale, or stored for sale only after obtaining the approval of such article of food and its label from Government of India. The Rule 49 (19) provides some mandatory requirements to be contained in the label affixed on baby food supplement. In this case the prosecution alleges that the label details found on the food article purchased by the Food Inspector do not conform to the mandatory requirements and details under Rule 37 B and

¶35

Crl.M.C.No. 2643 of 2012 3

¶36

Rule 49 (19) of the PFA Rules.

¶37

Of course, it is true that the Food Inspector has not explained in detail, or in so many words, what exactly is the misbranding meant by him, in the complaint. At the bottom of the complaint, the Food Inspector has quoted the provisions of the PFA Act and the rules involved in this case, and he has also specified the violation of specific rules, though the actual misbranding is not explained in so many words.

¶38

Whether there is misbranding in this case, or whether the details found on the label affixed on the food article purchased by the Food Inspector contains all the necessary requirements prescribed under the Rules, is a matter to be decided on trial. Just because the Food Inspector has not specified or explained the alleged misbranding in so many words in the complaint, the prosecution cannot be quashed, when the label will, by itself, show or prove the alleged rule violations. The complaint and

¶39

Crl.M.C.No. 2643 of 2012 4

¶40

also the report of analysis contains the label details. When such label details are there, showing specifically what all requirements have not been complied with, a decision regarding the alleged misbranding can be taken by the trial court. Though so many details are not there in the complaint, the Food Inspector has specified the rules violated in this case. Whether the requirements prescribed under the Rules 37 B and 49 (19) are there on the label affixed on the food article, will have to be decided by the trial court, and the alleged rule violation will have to be decided by the trial court. When necessary details are there in the complaint, and also in the label affixed on the food article this Court cannot quash the complaint at this stage saying that the alleged misbranding is not explained in so many words by the Food Inspector. Of course, it is true that misbranding is not something to be told or reported by the public analyst. Any way let the matter including the legal question raised by the petitioner regarding violation of rules,

¶41

Crl.M.C.No. 2643 of 2012

¶42

¶43

be decided by the trial court. This Court does not find any

¶44

legal reason or ground to quash the complaint at this stage.

¶45

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/P. UBAID (JUDGE)

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

DSV/13/02

K.G.James v. Food Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.James v. Food Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saju Vs State of Kerala

Aysha Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Vs the Village Officer

M.K.Mohammed Rawther Vs State of Kerala

Moideen Vs State of Kerala

C.C.Wilson Vs Rajan