Allowed

T.v.Aniyan v. Food Inspector, Vaikom Municipality

Kerala HC20 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/947/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed the criminal revision petition against conviction for food adulteration. The judgment held that the trial court could not rely on the Central Food Laboratory's certificate because no laboratory was notified and no validated method of analysis was prescribed, making the evidence inadmissible.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; revision petitioner acquitted; bail bond cancelled; accused set at liberty.

T.v.Aniyan Vs Food Inspector, Vaikom Municipality — 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 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/29TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 947 of 2009 ( )

¶6

CRL.A 762/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CC 363/2004 of J.M.F.C.,VAIKOM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

T.V.ANIYAN, ANANDABHAVAN,

¶9

CHEMMANATTUKARA PO, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN

¶11

SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.S.SREEKUMAR(NORTH PARAVUR) SRI.E.A.THANKAPPAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

FOOD INSPECTOR, VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY VAIKOM P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶19

¶20

Crl.R.P. No.947 of 2009

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 20^th day of September 2016

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The second accused in C.C. No.363 of 2004 on the

¶25

files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

¶26

Vaikom filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by

¶27

the courts below under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sections 2(ia)(a)(m) and 7(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act').

¶28

Heard.

¶29

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated

thus:-

Crl.R.P.947/2009

: 2 :

On 26.12.2003 at 1.20 p.m., PW1, the Food Inspector, purchased 750 grams of coconut oil from the first accused. The second accused was the manufacturer of the coconut oil. After complying with the legal formalities, one sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst filed Ext.P15 report stating that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for coconut oil and hence the sample was adulterated. Thereafter, on the request of the accused, the second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Ext.P23 certificate of the Central Food Laboratory would also show that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for coconut oil under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and was therefore, adulterated.

¶34

Before the trial Court, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P27 were marked for the

¶35

prosecution. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ext.D1

¶36

Crl.R.P.947/2009

¶37

: 3 :

¶38

was marked on the side of the revision petitioner.

¶39

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has 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. P23 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 petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector [(2011)

¶40

1 SCC 176] to buttress his argument.

¶41

6 It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holdings (supra) that since the Laboratories

¶42

Crl.R.P.947/2009

¶43

: 4 :

¶44

were not notified and the tests conducted by such

¶45

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 [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

¶46

Crl.R.P.947/2009

¶47

: 5 :

¶48

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).

¶49

In this case, admittedly, the laboratory for the 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. P23 certificate of Central 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) read with Sections 2(ia)(a)(m) and 7(i) of the P.F.A. Act, cannot be

Crl.R.P.947/2009

: 6 :

sustained.

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed

¶54

setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial

¶55

Court under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) read with Sections 2(ia)