Partly allowed

Ramakrishnan v. Food Inspector, Mannarkkad

Kerala HC26 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1028/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal revision petition in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence for food adulteration. The court held that without a notified laboratory and validated analysis method as mandated by the P.F.A. Act, the Public Analyst's report was inadmissible, rendering the conviction unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside due to inadmissibility of Public Analyst's report; fine awarded set aside without prejudice.

Ramakrishnan Vs Food Inspector, Mannarkkad — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/4TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1028 OF 2012 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-03-2012 IN CRA NO. 51/2011 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, OTTAPALAM

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-12-2010IN ST NO.1566/2004 OF J.M.F.C.- I, OTTAPPALAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

RAMAKRISHNAN,

¶10

S/O.KUNHULAKSHMI AMMA, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, VELLINEZHI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶13

1. FOOD INSPECTOR, MANNARKKAD CIRCLE, (FOOD INSPECTOR-VELLINEZHI PANCHAYAT), MANNARKKAD-P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 016.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. RAMESH CHAND

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

DST

¶18

B. SUDHEENDRAKUMAR, J.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012

¶20

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of September, 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The accused in S.T. No.1566 of 2004 on the

¶23

files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ottappalam, filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 2(ia)(c), 7(i)(iii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act') read with Rule 50 read with Appendix BA 05.20.01 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the P.F.A. Rules')

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:-

¶26

On 04.12.2002 at about 5 pm, PW1, the Food

¶27

Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

Inspector, purchased nine packets of “turmeric powder” (each packet containing 100 grams each) from the accused. After sampling as per Rules, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst filed Ext. P12 report stating that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for the turmeric, as it contained 25% 'wheat starch' and was therefore adulterated.

¶30

Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW4 were

¶31

examined and Exts.P1 to P26 were marked for the prosecution. DW1 was examined for the revision petitioner.

¶32

The learned counsel for the revision

¶33

petitioner has argued that since no laboratory for the analysis of the food item was defined and no validated method of analysis was prescribed as per the mandate of Section 23 (1-A)(ee) and (hh) of

¶34

the PFA Act, Ext.P12 report of analyst cannot be

¶35

Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012

¶36

-: 3 :-

¶37

acted upon to hold that the food item purchased by

¶38

the Food Inspector was adulterated. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the

¶39

decision of the Apex Court in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector [(2011) 1 SCC 176] to buttress his argument.

¶40

6 It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶41

Pepsico India Holdings (supra) that since the Laboratories were not notified and the tests conducted by such laboratories were not admissible in evidence, no prosecution could be based on such report. In the decision of this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector [2013 (3) KLT 455], the court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holdings (supra) and found that the Public Analyst's report was not admissible

¶42

Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012

¶43

-: 4 :-

¶44

in evidence and accordingly, the Court acquitted the

¶45

accused. The Division Bench of this Court in

¶46

Rasheed v. Food Inspector [2016 (2) KLT 390]

¶47

considered the above question on a reference by a learned Single Judge. The Division Bench in

¶48

Rasheed's case (supra) held that if an analysis is required to initiate prosecution, there should be notified laboratory and validated method of analysis as mandated under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the P.F.A. Act for a successful prosecution as held by the Apex Court in Pepsico Holdings (supra) .

¶49

In this case, admittedly, the laboratory

¶50

for the analysis of food item was not defined and no validated method of analysis of the food item was prescribed as mandated under Section 23 (1-A) (ee) and (hh) of the P.F.A. Act. Therefore, Ext.P12

¶51

Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012

¶52

-: 5 :-

¶53

report of analyst cannot be acted upon to hold that

¶54

the food item purchased in this case was adulterated in view of the decision of the Apex court in Pepsico India Holdings (supra) . Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 2(ia)(c), 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act read with Appendix BA 05.20.01 of the P.F.A. Rules, cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same.

¶55

The court below awarded a fine of Rs.500/and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for 15 days under Rule 50 of the PFA Rules read with Sections 7(iii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act stating that the revision petitioner

¶56

did not have licence to sell the food item during the relevant time. There is nothing on record to

¶57

Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012

¶58

-: 6 :-

¶59

show that the revision petitioner had the requisite

¶60

licence during the relevant time to sell the food item. In the said circumstance, the conviction passed by the courts below under Rule 50 of the Rules read with Sections 7(iii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act does not warrant any interference by this Court. The sentence awarded by the courts below also does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶61

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed in part as above.

¶62

If the revision petitioner had already deposited the amount towards fine as directed by the court below as per order dated 11.05.2012 in Crl.M.A. No.3576 of 2012, the revision petitioner need not deposit any further amount to comply with

¶63

Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012

¶64

-: 7 :-

¶65

the direction regarding fine. If the revision petitioner had deposited any excess amount, the revision petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of

¶66

the same from the trial court.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

B. SUDHEENDRAKUMAR, JUDGE