Allowed

P.M.Baby v. Food Inspector, Kanhanged

Kerala HC26 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1526/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition, setting aside the convictions and sentences of the accused for food adulteration. The court held that the Public Analyst's report was inadmissible because no laboratory was notified and no validated method of analysis was prescribed under Section 23(1-A) of the P.F.A. Act, following Supreme Court precedent.

What the court decided

AI extract

P.M.Baby Vs Food Inspector, Kanhanged — 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. 1526 of 2012

¶6

JUDGMENT DTD. 31.5.2012 IN CRL.A.14/2011 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KASARAGOD JUDGMENT DTD. 23.12.2010 IN C.C.NO. 280/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HOSDURG

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 :

¶8

1. P.M.BABY, VELLARIKUNDU TRADING COMPANY, DOOR NO.B.P.II-310 A, P.O.VELLARIKUNDU DASARAGOD DISTRICT, RESIDENCE PANACKA THOTTATHIL, VELLARIKUNDU.

¶9

2. SMT.JESSY BABY, VELLARIKUNDU TRADING COMPANY,

¶10

DOOR NO.B.P.II-310 A,. P.O.VELLARIKUNDU, DASARAGOD DISTRICT, RESIDENCE PANACKA THOTTATHIL,' P.O. VELLARIKUNDU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.JOMY GEORGE

¶12

SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS SRI.P.REJINARK

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :

¶14

1. FOOD INSPECTOR, KANHANGED CIRCLE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶15

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND

¶17

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

¶18

msv/

¶19

B. SUDHEENDRAKUMAR, J.

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl. R.P. No. 1526 of 2012

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.280 of 2009 on

¶24

the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court-II, Hosdurg, filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 16(1A)(i) read with Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(a)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act') and Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the P.F.A. Rules')

¶25

Heard.

¶26

The prosecution allegation can be briefly

¶27

stated thus:-

¶28

On 24-09-2008 at about 12.15 pm, PW1, the

¶29

Crl. R.P. No. 1526 of 2012

¶30

-: 2 :-

¶31

Food Inspector, purchased three sealed packets of 'banana chips', each packet contained 160 gram each, from the 1^st accused. The 2^nd accused was the licensee of the said shop and the 3^rd accused was the manufacturer of the said food item. After sampling as per rules, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst submitted Ext.P10 report, stating that the sample contained synthetic food colour tartrazine in contravention of Rule 29 of the P.F.A. Rules and was therefore adulterated.

¶32

Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P25 were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioners.

¶33

The learned counsel for the revision

¶34

Crl. R.P. No. 1526 of 2012

¶35

-: 3 :-

¶36

petitioners 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 the P.F.A. Act, Ext.P10 report of the Public Analyst 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.

¶37

6 It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holdings (supra) that since the Laboratories were not notified and the tests conducted by such laboratories were not admissible

¶38

Crl. R.P. No. 1526 of 2012

¶39

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],

¶40

this 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

¶41

accused. The Division Bench of this Court in

¶42

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

¶43

considered the above question on a reference by a learned Single Judge. The Division Bench in Rasheed's case (supra) held that if an analysis is required to initiate prosecution, there should be notified laboratory and validated method of analysis

¶44

as mandated under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the P.F.A. Act for a successful prosecution as

¶45

Crl. R.P. No. 1526 of 2012

¶46

-: 5 :-

¶47

held by the Apex Court in Pepsico Holdings (supra) .

¶48

In this case, admittedly, the laboratory

¶49

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.P10 report of analysis 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 Section 16 (1A) (i) read with Sections 7(i) and 2(ia) (a)(j) of P.F.A. Act and Rule 29 of the P.F.A. Rules cannot be sustained.

¶50

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence

¶51

Crl. R.P. No. 1526 of 2012

¶52

-: 6 :-

¶53

passed by the courts below under Section 16(IA)(i)

¶54

read with Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(a)(j) of P.F.A.

¶55

Act and Rule 29 of the P.F.A. Rules and the revision petitioners are acquitted for the said offence. The bail bonds of the revision petitioners stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

B. SUDHEENDRAKUMAR, JUDGE

¶58

DST

¶59

//True copy//

¶60

P.A. To Judge

P.M.Baby v. Food Inspector, Kanhanged

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

P.M.Baby v. Food Inspector, Kanhanged

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendran Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Parameswaran Vs Chirakkaparambil Kumaran and Another

Navas Vs State of Kerala

Ramakrishnan Vs Food Inspector, Mannarkkad

P.M.Murugesan Vs Chief Food Inspector, Mobile Vigilance Squad

Mathew Thomas Vs the Food Inspector