Allowed

Jose Joseph v. Food Inspector

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/902/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a criminal revision petition allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused of food adulteration. The court held that conviction could not be sustained because the relevant food laboratory was not notified and no validated analysis method was prescribed under the P.F.A. Act.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; bail bond discharged.

Jose Joseph Vs Food Inspector — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 902 of 2009 ( )

¶6

-------------------------------CRL.A 109/2006 of ADDL. DIST. COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA CC 171/2004 of J.M.F.C, MANANTHAVADY

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

JOSE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, KURUPPANATTU HOUSE, MAKKIYAD P.O., WAYANAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

FOOD INSPECTOR, MANANTHAVADY CIRCLE.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶15

¶16

Crl.R.P. No.902 of 2009

¶17

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25^th day of October 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The revision petitioner was found guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act') concurrently by the

¶20

courts below.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that on 23.12.2003 at

¶23

about 10.00 a.m., PW1, the Food Inspector, purchased 3

¶24

packets of coconut oil from the revision petitioner. After

¶25

complying with the legal formalities, one sample was sent

¶26

for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst

¶27

Crl.R.P.902/2009

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

filed Ext. P13 report stating that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for the food item and hence the sample was adulterated. Thereafter, on the request of the revision petitioner, the second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Ext.C1 certificate of the Central Food Laboratory would show that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for the food item, and was therefore, adulterated.

¶30

Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P26 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1. Ext.C1 was also marked for the prosecution. Ext.D1 was marked for the revision petitioner.

¶31

Crl.R.P.902/2009

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has

¶34

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 P.F.A. Act, Ext.C1 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 Apex Court in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector [(2011) 1 SCC 176] to buttress his argument.

¶35

6 It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holdings (supra) that since the Laboratories were not notified and the tests conducted by such

¶36

Crl.R.P.902/2009

¶37

: 4 :

¶38

laboratories were not admissible in evidence, no

¶39

prosecution could be based on such report. In the decision of this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector

¶40

[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

¶41

Crl.R.P.902/2009

¶42

: 5 :

¶43

successful prosecution as held by the Apex Court in

¶44

Pepsico Holdings (supra).

¶45

In this case, admittedly, the laboratory for the

¶46

analysis of food item was not defined and no validated

¶47

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.C1 certificate of the Central

¶48

Food Laboratory 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)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act, cannot be sustained.

¶49

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed

¶50

Crl.R.P.902/2009

¶51

: 6 :

¶52

setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under 16 (1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act and the

¶53

revision petitioner is acquitted for the said offence. The bail bond of the revision petitioner stands discharged.

¶54

Sd/-