Single Judge set aside conviction and sentence under P.F.A. Act as Public Analyst report was inadmissible due to lack of notified laboratory and validated analysis method mandated by Section 23. Petitioner acquitted and released on bail.
Accused acquitted, conviction and sentence set aside, bail bond cancelled, revision petitioner set at liberty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/6TH ASWINA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 763 of 2011 ( )
Crl.A 781/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC 143/1994 of ADDL.C.J.M.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER:
M.SAM,ORIENTAL DEPARTMENT STORE,
TC 3/151,PARUTHIPARA,KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM25,NOW R/AT MODILIL, TC 11/1730,CHARACHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
RESPONDENTS:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.K.PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P. No.763 of 2011
O R D E R
The second accused in C.C. No.143 of 1994 on the
files of the 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) and 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act').
thus:-
Crl.R.P.763/2011
: 2 :
On 14.10.1993 at about 4 p.m., PW2, the Food Inspector, purchased 750 grams of Bengal gram from the revision petitioner. The first 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. P12 report stating that the sample contained 55% of bengal gram flour, 45% of peas dhal flour and also coal tar and hence, the sample was adulterated.
examined and Exts.P1 to P17 were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced from the side of the revision petitioner.
Crl.R.P.763/2011
: 3 :
analysis was prescribed as per the mandate of Section 23 (1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the P.F.A. Act, Ext. P12 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 petitioner 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.
Crl.R.P.763/2011
: 4 :
[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 P.F.A. Act for a successful prosecution as held by the Apex Court in Pepsico Holdings (supra).
Crl.R.P.763/2011
: 5 :
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 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) and 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of of the P.F.A. Act cannot be sustained.
In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 2(ia) and 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act and the revision
Crl.R.P.763/2011
: 6 :
petitioner is acquitted for the said offence. The bail bond
of the revision petitioner stands cancelled and he is set at
liberty.
Sd/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/.29.8.2016
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction and sentence are sustainable when the Public Analyst's report is inadmissible due to lack of notified laboratory and validated analysis method.
Whether Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) mandates a notified laboratory for admissibility of analysis reports under the P.F.A. Act.
Whether the revision petitioner should be acquitted and set at liberty on grounds of inadmissible prosecution evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food InspectorApplied¶5
Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector [(2011) 1 SCC 176] · Who else cites this
Gopalakrishnan v. Food InspectorRelied on¶5
Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector [2013 (3) KLT 455]
Rasheed v. Food InspectorRelied on¶5
Rasheed v. Food Inspector [2016 (2) KLT 390]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M.SAM
K.ROBINSON
STATE OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
Parties & counsel
