Revision by the State against discharge of accused in a food adulteration case. The Division Bench relied on Rasheed N.K. to hold that non-compliance with mandatory PFA provisions vitiates prosecution. Rejected divergent views and dismissed the revision.
Revision petition dismissed in limine; impugned judgment allowing discharge stands affirmed.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2016/13TH ASHADHA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 881 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------
CC.NO. 31/2013 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, THRISSUR CORPORATION.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED:
1. ABDUL MAJEED.K.K., FATHIMA MANZIL, EDAKKAZHIYOR P.O.,
CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 515
2. E.P. HAMEED, S/O. KUNJUVEERU HAJI, ELAYIDATHUPUTHENVEETIL HOUSE, THIRUVATHRA P.O., CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR-680 516
R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
CRL.R.P.NO.881/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
| ANNEX 1 | COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25/01/2006 |
|---|---|
| ANNEX II | COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PUBLIC ANALYST. |
| ANNEX III | CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.31/2013 OF THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR DATED 19/06/2014. |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.881 of 2016
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2016
O R D E R
2.The prosecution allegation is that on 11.5.2005 at 11.30 a.m., an inspection was conducted in the business premises of the 1st respondent, namely “Durbar Hotel” near Railway Station at Thrissur and a sample of fish fry was procured after issuing Form VI notice. The sample was duly sent for analysis which resulted in the issuance of a report in form III as per which it was found that the sample did not conform to
Crl.R.P.881/2016 2
the standards prescribed for Proprietary Food under item No. 37 A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the PFA Act” for short) and was therefore adulterated. Consequently, prosecution was initiated against the 1st respondent under sections 2 (ia) (i), 7(iii) r/w Section 16 (1)(a)(i), 16(1A)(i)(ii) of the PFA Act, 1954 read with Rule 29 and 50(1), 37A of PFA Rules, 1955.
3.When the case stood for evidence prior to framing of charge, the respondents took up a contention that the charge against him was groundless and he was liable to be discharged under Section 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This contention was taken basing on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Pepsico Holdings Pvt.Ltd V Food Inspector (2009 (1) KHC 983) and that of this Court in Gopalakrishnan V Food Inspector (2013 (3) KHC 275) wherein it was
Crl.R.P.881/2016 3
held in unmistakable terms that section 23(1A)(ee) and (hh) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are mandatory, and any prosecution instituted under the Act , in violation of the said provisions cannot be sustained.
Crl.R.P.881/2016
4
petitioners herein and therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in discharging the
accused. It is contended that in Tito Varghese v. Food Inspector (2012 (4) KLT 796) this Court had held that Pepsico's case will not apply. Whereas in Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector (2013 (3) KLT 455) it was held that if there is non compliance of section 23(1A)(ee) and (hh) of the PFA Act, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is also contended that the ratio in Pepsico's case ( supra) cannot be made applicable to the instant case.
7.In this context it is relevant to note that a Division Bench of this Court had in Rasheed N.K. v. Food Inspector, Thalassery and Another (2016 KHC 370) had occasion to lay down an authoritative pronouncement and it was held that section 23(1A) (ee) and (hh) of the PFA Act are mandatory and a
Crl.R.P.881/2016
5
prosecution instituted in violation of the said Act cannot be sustained and it will have to be quashed.
In view of the said binding precedent of the Division
Bench , I am of the view that there is no merit in this petition. No interference is warranted and the Revision
Petition is dismissed in limine.
Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE
vps
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Magistrate was justified in discharging the accused under Section 245 of the CrPC due to alleged non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
Whether a prosecution instituted in violation of Section 23(1A)(ee) and (hh) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can be sustained where there are divergent views among High Court precedents.
Whether the authoritative pronouncement in Rasheed N.K. v. Food Inspector binds the court regarding the mandatory nature of PFA Act provisions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pepsico Holdings Pvt.Ltd V Food InspectorReferred¶38
(2009 (1) KHC 983)
Gopalakrishnan V Food InspectorReferred¶38
(2013 (3) KHC 275)
Tito Varghese v. Food InspectorReferred¶46
(2012 (4) KLT 796)
Gopalakrishnan v. Food InspectorReferred¶46
(2013 (3) KLT 455)
Rasheed N.K. v. Food Inspector, Thalassery and AnotherRelied on¶48
(2016 KHC 370)
5 provisions across 3 enactments
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ABDUL MAJEED.K.K.
E.P. HAMEED
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
