This criminal appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower court's order acquitting the accused. The High Court held that remanding the matter after a lapse of 19 years to ascertain procedural nuances regarding sanction would be a futile exercise.
Confirmed the order of acquittal dated 28.12.2001 and dismissed the criminal appeal.
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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1942
CRL.A.No.503 OF 2005(D)
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE FOOD INSPECTOR, DEVIKULAM CIRCLE.
BY SRI.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR, SR. PP
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:
1 G.R.AUSTINE S/O.JNANAMUTHU, MANAGER, MUNNAR SUPPLY ASSOCIATION LTD., MUNNAR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.BINU MATHEW R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.APPEAL NO.503 OF 2005 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of November 2020
challenging the order dated 28.12.2001 in
S.T.No.116 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam.
Inspector, Devikulam Circle alleging offences punishable under Sections 2(1)(e)(f), Section 7(1) r/w. Section 16(1-A)(i) of the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act and Rules.
analysis as per the application of the accused,
the Central Food Laboratory reported that the
sample is not adulterated since there is no
CRL.APPEAL NO.503 OF 2005 3
standard is laid down for tamarind in Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (PFA Rules). But the laboratory reported that the sample did not made the label requirement laid down in Rule 32 of the PFA Rules along with languages of the particulars or declaration of the label as laid down under Rule 33 of the PFA Rules.
Food Laboratory, the accused filed
C.M.P.Nos.1955 of 2001 and 1956 of 2001 for acquitting them. The Food Inspector filed C.M.P.No.1981 of 2001 for altering the charge and to incorporate the offence under Sections 2(ix)(K) r/w. Section 7(ii) and Section 16(1)(a) (i) of the PFA Act and Rule 32 and 33 of PFA
Rules.
the documents produced by both sides
C.M.P.Nos.1955 of 2001 and 1956 of 2001 were
allowed by the lower court and the accused were
CRL.APPEAL NO.503 OF 2005 4
acquitted under Section 255(1)Cr.P.C. But the
learned Magistrate allowed C.M.P.No.1981 of 2001
and the complainant was allowed to prosecute the accused for a fresh offence under Sections 2(ix)
(K) r/w. Section 7(1) and Section 16(1)(a)(i) of
the PFA Act and Rule 32 and 33 of PFA Rules. The
complainant was directed to produce the sanction for prosecuting the accused within 45 days from the date of the order in the above C.M.P. The sanction order was not produced by the Food Inspector. Therefore, the accused was found not guilty and he was acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, this criminal appeal is filed.
is acquitted for the offences for which the
complaint was filed. But, the learned Magistrate
allowed C.M.P.No.1981 of 2001 and the
complainant was allowed to prosecute the accused after getting sanction. Admittedly, the order in
CRL.APPEAL NO.503 OF 2005 5
C.M.P.No.1981 of 2001 was not challenged by the
prosecution. Now, after acquittal, the present
appeal is filed saying that, there is no sanction is necessary. If that is the case, the prosecution ought to have challenged the order
in C.M.P.No.1981 of 2001. Without challenging that order, the Food Inspector cannot challenge the acquittal order. Moreover, the prosecution was initiated in 2001. Now 19 years elapsed. At this distance of time, I think, it will be a futile exercise if this matter is remanded to the lower court for fresh disposal.
Hence, this criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 28.12.2001 in
S.T.No.116 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
pkk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sanction was requisite for prosecution of an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Whether the Criminal Appeal should be remanded when 19 years have elapsed since the initiation of proceedings.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE FOOD INSPECTOR, DEVIKULAM CIRCLE
G.R.AUSTINE
BOCHAMOIDEEN
CHINNA GURUSWAMY
M/S.MUNNAR SUPPLY ASSOCIATION LTD.
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
