Allowed

S.Satheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1509/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Applying the Pepsico India Holdings precedent, the court held that conviction was unsustainable because the prosecution relied on a Central Food Laboratory report without a defined laboratory or validated method as mandated. The appellant was acquitted and set at li

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence of the trial court are set aside; the revision appellant is acquitted; and bail bond is cancelled.

S.Satheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/31ST BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1509 of 2009 ( )

¶6

CRL.A 449/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CC 467/1992 of ADDL.C.J.M.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

¶8

S. SATHEESHKUMAR, VIJAYA MANDIRAM, KALLAMPALLY LANE, MCPO,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

¶12

ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P. No.1509 of 2009

¶18

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22^nd day of September 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The accused in C.C. No.467 of 1992 on the files of the

¶21

court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 2(ia) (a)(m) and 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act').

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated

thus:-

Crl.R.P.1509/2009

-: 2 :-

On 1.10.1992 at 12.15 p.m., PW1, the Food Inspector, purchased 100 m.l. of ice cream from the revision petitioner. After complying with the legal formalities, one sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst filed Ext.9 report stating that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for ice cream as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and hence, the sample was adulterated. Thereafter, on the request of the accused, the second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Ext.P12 certificate of the Central Food Laboratory would also show that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for ice cream as per the P.F.A. Rules, 1955 and was therefore, adulterated.

¶28

Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P21 were marked for the

¶29

prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the side of the

Crl.R.P.1509/2009

-: 3 :-

revision petitioner.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has

¶34

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 the PFA Act, Ext. P12 certificate of the Central Food Laboratory cannot be acted upon to hold that the food item purchased by the Food Inspector was adulterated. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector [(2011) 1 SCC 176] to buttress his argument.

¶35

6 It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holdings (supra) that since the Laboratories

¶36

Crl.R.P.1509/2009

¶37

-: 4 :-

¶38

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 in evidence and accordingly, the Court acquitted the accused. The Division Bench of this Court in Rasheed v. Food Inspector [2016 (2) KLT 390] considered the above question on a reference by a learned Single Judge. The Division Bench in Rasheed (supra) held that if an analysis is required to initiate prosecution, there should be notified laboratory and validated method of analysis as mandated

¶39

Crl.R.P.1509/2009

¶40

-: 5 :-

¶41

under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the PFA Act for a successful prosecution as held by the Apex Court in Pepsico Holdings (supra).

¶42

In this case, admittedly, the laboratory 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 certificate of the Central Food Laboratory cannot be acted upon to hold that 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 Sections 2(ia) (a)(m) and 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act, cannot

Crl.R.P.1509/2009

-: 6 :-

be sustained.

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed

¶47

setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Sections 2(ia)(a)(m) and 7(i) read with Section

¶48

16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act and the revision petitioner is acquitted for the said offence. The bail bond of the revision petitioner stands cancelled and he is set at liberty.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶51

dl/.23.9..2016

¶52

// True Copy //

¶53

PA to Judge

S.Satheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Satheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Hussain Vs the Food Inspector,Manjeri and Another

T.v.Aniyan Vs Food Inspector, Vaikom Municipality

Mohammad K. Vs the Food Inspector and Another

Parameswaran Vs Chirakkaparambil Kumaran and Another

Navas Vs State of Kerala

M.Gopinath Vs the State of Kerala