Allowed

Jaison.T.J v. the Food Inspector

Kerala HC8 Jan 2018Crl.MC/212/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge quo warranto/CC under challenged a criminal case based on a food analysis report deemed invalid. Ruling that Section 23(1A) of the PCA Act is mandatory and was not complied with, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case No. 212 of 2016 allowed; Annexure A1 complaint and all proceedings in C.C. No. 567/2011 quashed.

Jaison.T.J Vs the Food Inspector — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶3

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 18TH POUSHA, 1939

¶4

CC 567/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶5

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 & 3

¶6

1 JAISON T.J., S/O.T.T.JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, MANAGER, HIGHLANDS TEA FACTORY, CALVARIMOUNT.P.O.,

¶7

KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI.

¶8

2 M/S.HIGHLANDS TEA FACTORY, CALVARIMOUNT.P.O., KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER JAISON T.J.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU

¶10

SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶12

1. THE FOOD INSPECTOR ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.683 101.

¶13

2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SHEEBA

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sdr/-

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 212 of 2016

¶18

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶20

ANNEXURE A1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.5.2011 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-1, ALUVA.

¶21

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶26

................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 212 of 2016

¶27

............................................................... Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2018

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

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

¶30

What is under challenge is the validity of the analysis report of the food involved in C.C. No.567/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Aluva.

¶31

Relying on the decision reported in Pepsico

¶32

India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector and another [2010 (4) KLT 706 (SC)] , this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspecto r [2013 (3) KLT 455] had held that the provisions under Section 23(1A)(ee) and (hh) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are mandatory and the same are applicable to all the food items.

¶33

CRL.M.C.No. 212 of 2016

¶34

-: 2 :-

¶35

The question involved in this case is the non compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 23(1A)(ee) and (hh) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As there was a divergent view in the matter, the decision in Gopalakrishnan ( supra ) along with the other decisions of the learned Single Judges were referred to the Division Bench. The Division Bench of this Court in Crl.R.P. No.1814/2002 considered the said question and has disposed of the matter through order dated 17.11.2015, thereby upholding the view taken by this Court in Gopalakrishnan ( supra ).

¶36

Matters being so, the continued prosecution of the petitioners in C.C. No.567/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Aluva, are illegal and no purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter any further. The matters involved in the said case are quite unnecessary in view of the decisions noted supra and, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.

¶37

CRL.M.C.No. 212 of 2016

¶38

-: 3 :-

¶39

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure A1

¶40

complaint and all further proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C. No.567/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Aluva, are hereby quashed.

¶41

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶42

ul/-

¶43

[True copy]

¶44

P.S. to Judge.

Jaison.T.J v. the Food Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaison.T.J v. the Food Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jijo @ Kunjumon Vs the State of Kerala

Ranjith Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Devina Pauline Vandhana Vs State of Kerala

Muhammad Aslam Vs State of Kerala

Harikumar Vs the State of Kerala

Imad Zaouk Vs State of Kerala