Kerala High Court
M. Narayana Pillai vs State Of Kerala
Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/18TH POUSHA, 1937
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3158 of 2006 ( )
---------------------------------
Crl.A 418/2000 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK -1),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC 545/1998 of J.M.F.C.-II,NEDUMANGAD
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/FIRST ACCUSED::
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. NARAYANA PILLAI, MADATHICHIRA VEEDU,
ANAD, ANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
SRI.MANU V.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT::
------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM.
2. K. SEKHARAN, FOOD INSPECTOR, ::: DELETED
ANAD PANCHAYAT, ANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER
DATED 3.9.2015 IN CRL.M.A.4688/2015 IN CRL.R.P.3158/2006
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.R.GITHESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P. No.3158 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 8th day of January 2016
O R D E R
The first accused in C.C. No.545 of 1998 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - II, Nedumangad filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 2(ia)(a)(m) and 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Heard.
3. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:-
Crl.R.P.3158/2006 : 2 :
On 19.6.1995 at 3 p.m., PW1, the Food Inspector, purchased 375 gram of gingelly oil from the shop of the first accused. Second accused was the person who supplied the same to the first accused. After sampling as per rules, one of the samples was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst filed Ext. P9 report stating that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for gingelly oil under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1956 and therefore, the same was adulterated.
4. Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P17 series were marked for the prosecution. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ext.D1 was marked for the revision petitioner. Crl.R.P.3158/2006 : 3 :
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted 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 PFA Act, Ext. P9 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) 1 SCC 176] to buttress his argument.
6. 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 Crl.R.P.3158/2006 : 4 : P.F.A. Act. Therefore, Ext. P9 report of analysis 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). It was held by the Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holdings (supra) that since the Laboratories were not notified and the tests conducted by such laboratories were not admissible in evidence, no prosecution could be based on such report and the accused was entitled to get acquittal. 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 Crl.R.P.3158/2006 : 5 : matter was referred to a Division Bench and the Division Bench also affirmed the said decision, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Even otherwise, in view of the decision in Pepsico India Holdings (supra), the conviction in this case cannot be sustained as no laboratory was notified and no validated method of analysis was specified as mandated under Section 23 (1-A) (ee) and (hh) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sec.2(ia)(a)(m) and 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act, 1954 and the revision petitioner is acquitted for the said offence. The bail bond Crl.R.P.3158/2006 : 6 : of the revision petitioner stands cancelled and he is set at liberty.
SD/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE dl/20.1.2016 // True Copy // PA to Judge