Allowed

S.Kunjappan v. Food Inspector,Kozhikode

Kerala HC5 Jul 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/1215/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted a criminal revision petition, acquitting the second accused in a food adulteration case. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrate and Sessions Judge because the prosecution failed to prove that the public analyst used notified methods of analysis or operated in a notified laboratory as required by the PFA Act and Rules.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence imposed upon the revision petitioner are set aside.

S.Kunjappan Vs Food Inspector,Kozhikode — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1215 OF 2004

¶6

CRA 264/2001 OF SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD

¶7

ST 378/1997 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PALAKKAD

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT :

¶9

S.KUNJAPPAN,

¶10

AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, NALINJAMKODE VEEDU, VITTUPEEDIKA, KODUVAYOOR POST, PALAKKAD.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT :

¶13

1 FOOD INSPECTOR, MOBILE VIGILENCE SQUARE, MALAPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE - 9.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA,

¶15

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

BY SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶18

ON 05.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

¶19

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1215 OF 2004

¶20

¶21

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶22

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.1215 of 2004

¶24

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Revision petitioner was the 2^nd accused in S.T.No.378 of 1997 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Palakkad. By judgment dated 07.06.2001, the learned Magistrate found accused 1 and 2 guilty of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) r/w proviso (ii) of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'PFA Act') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

¶27

Though there were totally six accused, accused 3 to 6 were acquitted and only the revision petitioner and the first accused alone were convicted by the learned Magistrate. On appeal to the Sessions Court, Palakkad, in Crl.A.No.264 of 2001, the learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 06.02.2004 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the revision petitioner. The appeal preferred by the first accused, as Crl.A.No.273 of 2001, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the same and acquitted him. Thus, the present revision is by the 2^nd accused alone.

¶28

¶29

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1215 OF 2004

¶30

After the revision petition was admitted, since the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner expired, notice was directed to be served on the revision petitioner himself. Despite attempting to serve notice on him, through the police as well as through post, the same could not be effected due to absence of the revision petitioner in the address mentioned. However, since the revision petition has been pending consideration from 2004 onwards, it was taken up and considered on merits.

¶31

According to the prosecution, on 18.06.1997, at 11.30 a.m., the Food Inspector had purchased two packets of Nadukani pasteurized tonned milk, which on analysis was found not to conform to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1956 (PFA Rules). As per the report of the public analyst, the sample contained not less than 20% of added water and the milk fat fell below the prescribed standards of 3%. The revision petitioner as the 2^nd accused was the distributor of the milk.

¶32

I have heard Sri.C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent.

¶33

The very basis of prosecution is that on analysis of the sample of milk, it was found that it did not confirm to the prescribed standards. The prosecution is therefore based on a method of analysis conducted by the public analyst.

¶34

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1215 OF 2004

¶35

¶36

In the decision in Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited v.

¶37

Food Inspector and Another [2011 (1) SCC 176] the Supreme Court had held that under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and its Rules, it was the bounden duty to specify the methods of analysis and notify the laboratories. It was also held that since the said methods had not been delineated or the laboratories notified by the Government as prescribed by the Rules, the prosecution based upon an analysis which had not been validated cannot have the authority of law. In the decision in Rasheed

¶38

v. Food Inspector [2016 (2) KLT 390] , it was held that for a successful prosecution under the PFA Act, a notified laboratory and validated methods of analysis are essential.

¶39

In the instant case, it is evident that the entire prosecution case is built upon the report of the public analyst which stated that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for toned milk as per the standards fixed in Appendix B. A.11.01.11 of the Rules. As per the said standards prescribed, the sample of toned milk must contain a minimum of 3% of the milk fat.

¶40

Whether the sample satisfied the prescriptions of the Rules as mentioned above or not could be identified only by virtue of an analysis, that too based upon methods that are prescribed and in notified laboratories. Since admittedly the methods of analysis had not been notified, the prosecution against the petitioner could not have even been

¶41

¶42

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1215 OF 2004

¶43

initiated. Therefore, the revision petitioner could not have been convicted for the offences alleged. The finding of guilt of the revision petitioner by the learned Magistrate and its consequent confirmation by the learned Sessions Judge are both irregular and improper.

¶44

Hence I allow this revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the revision petitioner in S.T.No.378 of 1997 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Palakkad.

¶45

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶46

RKM

S.Kunjappan v. Food Inspector,Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kunjappan v. Food Inspector,Kozhikode

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

Madhu.v.R Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government

Ambujakshan Vs State of Kerala

George Antony Vs State of Kerala

Vikraman Vs the State of Kerala

Dr Judith Mattakkal Jose Vs State of Kerala

Prasad Babu Vs State of Tamil Nadu