Allowed

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

Kerala HC26 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1623/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, holding that conviction and sentence under the P.F.A. Act could not be sustained. The court ruled that since no laboratory for analysis was notified and no validated method was prescribed as mandated by the Act, the Central Food Laboratory's certificate could not be acted upon to prove adulteration, relying on Pepsico India Holdings.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; revision petitioners acquitted; bail bonds cancelled and petitioners set at liberty.

P.M.Murugesan Vs Chief Food Inspector, Mobile Vigilance Squad — Cheque Dishonour | 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. 1623 of 2012

¶6

CRL.A 243/2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM DATED 21-02-2012 ST 1/2004 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 31-03-2006

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 3 AND 4:

¶8

1. P.M.MURUGESAN (NOMINEE), MANAGER, LION DATA IMPLEX (P) LIMITED, 4-A/3, CAUVERY ROAD, TRICHY - 620 002.

¶9

2. LION DATES IMPLEX (P) LIMITED, 4-A/3, CAUVERY ROAD, TRICHY - 620 002, TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY P.M. MURUGESAN.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.A.MURALEEDHARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

1. CHIEF FOOD INSPECTOR, MOBILE VIGILANCE SQUAD KAKKANAD, KOCHI -30, REPRESENTED BY FOOD INSPECTOR, KOTTAYM MUNICIPALITY.

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

B. SUDHEENDRAKUMAR, J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl. R.P. No.1623 of 2012

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Accused Nos.3 and 4 in S.T. No.1 of 2004 on

¶22

the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sections 2(i-a)(m), 17(i)(a)(i) and (b) and 7(i) and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act') and Appendix B of Rule 5 item A.07.03 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short' the P.F.A. Rules').

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The prosecution allegation can be briefly

¶25

stated thus:-

¶26

On 04.09.2003, PW1, the Food Inspector,

¶27

Crl. R.P. No. 1623 of 2012

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

purchased six bottles of 'honey', each bottle

¶30

contained 100 gram each, from the 1^st accused. The 2^nd accused is the licensee of the said shop and the 3^rd accused is the nominee of the 4^th accused firm, which manufactured the food item. After complying with the legal formalities, one sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst submitted Ext.P11 report stating that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for honey

¶31

under the P.F.A. Rules and was therefore adulterated. Thereafter, on the request of the accused, the second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Ext.P17 certificate of the Central Food Laboratory would also show that the sample did not conform to the standard as per P.F.A. Rules and was therefore, adulterated.

¶32

Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.P1 to P29 were marked for the

¶33

Crl. R.P. No. 1623 of 2012

¶34

prosecution. DW1 and DW2 were examined on the side of the defence.

¶35

The learned counsel for the revision

¶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 PFA Act, Ext. P17 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

¶37

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

¶38

It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶39

in Pepsico India Holdings (supra) that since the Laboratories were not notified and the tests

¶40

Crl. R.P. No. 1623 of 2012

¶41

-: 4 :-

¶42

conducted by such laboratories were not admissible

¶43

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], 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 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'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 PFA Act for a successful prosecution as held by the Apex Court in Pepsico Holdings (supra) .

¶44

Crl. R.P. No. 1623 of 2012

¶45

-: 5 :-

¶46

In this case, admittedly, the laboratory

¶47

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.P17 certificate 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 Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sections 2(i-a)(m), 17(i)(a)(i) and (b) and 7(i) and (v) of the P.F.A. Act and Appendix B of Rule 5 item A.07.03 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 of the P.F.A. Rules cannot be sustained.

¶48

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 16(1)(a)(i)

¶49

Crl. R.P. No. 1623 of 2012

¶50

-: 6 :-

¶51

read with Sections 2(i-a)(m), 17(i)(a)(i) and (b) and 7(i) and (v) of the P.F.A. Act and Appendix B of Rule 5 item A.07.03 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.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

B. SUDHEENDRAKUMAR, JUDGE

¶54

DST

¶55

//True copy//

¶56

P.A. To Judge

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Rajendran Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Parameswaran Vs Chirakkaparambil Kumaran and Another

Navas Vs State of Kerala

Ramakrishnan Vs Food Inspector, Mannarkkad

P.M.Baby Vs Food Inspector, Kanhanged

Mathew Thomas Vs the Food Inspector