Allowed

Prasad Kumar P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Aug 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/3223/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, acquitting the accused who faced charges for food adulteration. The court held that the conviction could not be sustained because the laboratory for analysis was not notified and no validated method of analysis was prescribed as mandated by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

What did the court decide?

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

Prasad Kumar P. Vs State of Kerala — 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

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/4TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3223 of 2010 ( )

¶6

CRA 305/2008 of III ADDL.S.C., KOLLAM CC 233/2003 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

PRASAD KUMAR.P, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, MUNDAKKAL MIDDLE, KOLLAM.

¶9

M/S.HOTEL KARTHIKA, PAIKADA ROAD, ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.R.ASWAS

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY FOOD INSPECTOR KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM REP BY PUBLIC, PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.ALEX M THOMBRA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P. No.3223 of 2010

¶18

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26^th day of August 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The accused in C.C. No.233 of 2003 on the files of the

¶21

court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, filed this

¶22

Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under

¶23

Sections 16(1) read with Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(j) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act') read with Rules 23 and 29 of the Prevention of

¶24

Food Adulteration Rules, 1955(for short 'the PFA Rules').

¶25

Heard.

¶26

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated

thus:-

Crl.R.P.3223/2010

: 2 :

On 21.12.2002 at about 1 p.m., PW1, the Food

¶31

Inspector, purchased one plate of “Biriyani” rice from the second accused, wherein the first accused is the proprietor.

¶32

After complying with the legal formalities, one sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public

¶33

Analyst filed Ext. P13 report stating that the sample contained synthetic food colour tartrazine and sunset yellow F.C.F. and was therefore, adulterated.

¶34

Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts. P1 to P22 were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced from the side of the revision petitioners.

¶35

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has argued that since no laboratory for the analysis of the food

¶36

Crl.R.P.3223/2010

¶37

: 3 :

¶38

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.P13 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

¶39

the Apex Court in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food

¶40

Inspector [(2011) 1 SCC 176] to buttress his argument.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Crl.R.P.3223/2010

¶44

: 4 :

¶45

[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 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).

¶46

In this case, admittedly, the laboratory for the

¶47

Crl.R.P.3223/2010

¶48

: 5 :

¶49

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. P13 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(1) read with Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(j) of the P.F.A. Act read with Rules 23 and 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 passed by the courts below under 16(1) read with Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)

¶51

Crl.R.P.3223/2010

¶52

: 6 :

¶53

(j) of the P.F.A. Act read with Rules 23 and 29 of the P.F.A.

¶54

Rules and the revision petitioners are acquitted for the said

¶55

offence. The bail bonds of the revision petitioners stand

¶56

cancelled and they are set at liberty.