Allowed

J. Thomas and Company Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jun 2018Crl.MC/1846/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed petitions to quash criminal proceedings under PFA Rules 1955. It held that if the test sample was not examined by a certified lab, the proceedings must be quashed, extending a previous precedent to the accused in the present case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1568 of 2010 before JFCM-II, Kottarakkara were quashed. The petitions (Nos.1846 of 2018 and 3256 of 2018) were allowed.

J. Thomas and Company Private Limited Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1846 of 2018

¶6

CC 1568/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOTTARAKKARA PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 4 & 5

¶7

1 J. THOMAS AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, BRISTOW ROAD, COCHIN, KERALA-682003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.VIJAY SHANKAR.

¶8

2 VIJAY SHANKAR, E3B, WELLINGTON ENCLAVE, PANDIT KURUPPAN ROAD, THEVARA FERRY, THEVARA, KOCHI-682013.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS

¶10

SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE SMT.RACHEL ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

2. FOOD INSPECTOR, KOTTARAKARA CIRCLE, MARKET JUNCTION, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691506.

¶14

BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITWIK

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2018,ALONG WITH CR.MC.NO. 3256/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

PBS

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 1846 of 2018 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶20

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.1568/2010 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOOD INSPECTOR BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, KOTTARAKARA ON 16.06.2010.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PUBLIC ANALYST DATED 04.12.2009.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE/REPORT ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL FOOD LABORATORY , PUNE DATED 13.07.2011.
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, THROUGH THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (FSSAI) TO THE FOOD SAFETY COMMISSIONERS OF ALL STATES.
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, THROUGH THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (FSSAI) TO THE FOOD SAFETY COMMISSIONERS OF ALL STATES.
ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2017 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO.18/2017.
ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.04.2017 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO.1587/2013.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE PBS 12/6/2018

¶22

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶23

Crl.M.C. Nos.1846 & 3256 of 2018

¶24

--------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2018

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Petitioners in Crl. M.C No.3256 of 2018 are accused 2 and 3 and the petitioners in Crl. M.C No.1846 of 2018 are accused 4 and 5 in C.C.No.1568 of 2010 on the file of the JFCM-II, Kottarakkara. They are alleged to have committed the offences under Section 16(1-A) (a)(II) r/w Section 2 (1-a)b, 7(1), 7(V) and Rule 5 Appendix B.A-14 of PFA Rules 1955. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the sample of the food item was not tested by a certified lab.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

Accused 6 and 7 filed Crl. M.C No.1587 of 2013 to quash the proceedings against them on the ground that the laboratory at which the sample of food item was tested was not a certified one. By Annexure-G order in Crl. MC No.1846 of 2018 this court upheld the contention and quash the proceedings as against accused 6 and 7. The petitioners are also entitled to get the proceedings quashed as against them on the very

¶30

Crl.M.C. Nos.1846 & 3256 of 2018 2

¶31

same ground.

¶32

In the result, these Crl.M.Cs are allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.1568 of 2010 on the file of the JFCM-II, Kottarakkara are quashed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶35

J. Thomas and Company Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Thomas and Company Private Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dijesh P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Payyanur Police Station

Prakash Bhat K Vs State of Kerala

Salim Vs a.Abdul Rahiman

V.v.Abdulla Vs the State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala