Allowed

Mathew Thomas v. the Food Inspector

Kerala HC26 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/384/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for food adulteration. The court held that because no specific laboratory or validated analysis method was notified under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as required by Supreme Court precedents, the Public Analyst's report was inadmissible, leading to acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Revision petitioners acquitted; conviction and sentence set aside; bail bonds cancelled and they set at liberty.

Mathew Thomas Vs the Food Inspector — Consumer Protection | 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. 384 of 2010 ( )

¶6

Crl. A 487/2008 of ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM CC 517/1999 of J.M.F.C.,PALA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSD:

¶8

MATHEW THOMAS, LAPPALLIL HOUSE, VANNARAKKUNNU, SREEKANDAMANGALAM,, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

MATHEW JOSEPH, VENGACHUVATTIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.S.SREEKUMAR(NORTH PARAVUR) SRI.E.A.THANKAPPAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

THE FOOD INSPECTOR, PALA CIRCLE, PALA.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

¶14

THE PUBLIC PROSECTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.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

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶18

¶19

Crl.R.P. No.384 of 2010

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The accused in C.C. No.517 of 1999 on the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pala filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 2(ia)(a)(c)(e) and 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act') and Rule 5 Appendix B.A.11.01.11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,

¶23

1955 (for short 'the P.F.A. Rules').

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Crl.R.P.384/2010

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated

¶28

thus:-

¶29

On 29-3-1999 at about 4.30 p.m., PW1, the Food Inspector, purchased 1 litre of cow milk from the first accused. The second accused was the licensee of the shop. After complying with the legal formalities, one sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst filed Ext. P18 report stating that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for cow milk and hence, the sample was adulterated.

¶30

Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts. P1 to P21 were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced from the side of the

¶31

revision petitioners.

¶32

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has

¶33

argued that since no laboratory for the analysis of the food

¶34

Crl.R.P.384/2010

¶35

: 3 :

¶36

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. P18 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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Crl.R.P.384/2010

¶41

: 4 :

¶42

[2013 (3) KLT 455], the court relied on the decision of the

¶43

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).

¶44

In this case, admittedly, the laboratory for the

¶45

Crl.R.P.384/2010

¶46

: 5 :

¶47

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. P18 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 Sections 2(ia)(a)(c)(e) and 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a) (i)of PFA Act and Rule 5 Appendix B.A.11.01.11 of the PFA 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 Sections 2(ia)(a)(c)(e) and 7(i) read

¶49

Crl.R.P.384/2010

¶50

: 6 :

¶51

with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of PFA Act and Rule 5 Appendix

¶52

B.A.11.01.11 of the PFA Rules and the revision petitioners

¶53

are acquitted for the said offence. The bail bonds of the revision petitioners stand cancelled and they are set at

¶54

liberty.