Kerala High Court
M.A.Majeed vs Joseph Shaji George on 25 September, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.R.P.No.376/2006
1
2025:KER:71853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA,
1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 376 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2005 IN Crl.A
NO.471 OF 2003 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS (FAST TRACK COURT-
II, ALAPPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
28.10.2003 IN CC NO.815 OF 1998 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -II, CHERTHALA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
M.A.MAJEED, THARAKASSERIL HOUSE,
TRICHATTUKULAM, PANAVALLY, CHERTHALA TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
SRI.BALAKRISHNAN GOPINATH
SRI.S.SUJIN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 JOSEPH SHAJI GEORGE, FOOD INSPECTOR, CHERTHALA
CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, &,
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF,
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE-SPL.GP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.376/2006
2
2025:KER:71853
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 21/10/2005 in Crl.Appeal No.471/2003 on the files of the Additional Sessions Fast Track Court-II, Alappuzha (for short, the appellate court) confirming the judgment dated 28/10/2003 in CC No.815/1998 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala (for short, the trial court).
2. The revision petitioner is the accused. He faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 16 read with Section 7(i) and 2(ia)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the PFA Act) and Rule 29 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short, the PFA Rules).
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 19.3.1998 at about 12.30 pm, the complainant purchased 600 gms of banana chips fried in coconut oil from the shop of the accused/petitioner in EP VI/27 of Ezhupunna Grama Panchayat. After taking samples, the complainant has sent one part of the sample to the public analyst and the remaining two parts to the local health authority as per the statutory provisions. On analysis, the public analyst forwarded Form III Crl.R.P.No.376/2006 3 2025:KER:71853 report to the local health authority stating that the sample contained a synthetic food colour "Tartrazine" and is therefore adulterated. On receipt of the report of the public analyst that the sample was adulterated, prosecution was launched against accused.
4. The accused appeared at the trial court. The particulars of the offences were read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty. After hearing both sides, charge was framed by the trial court against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to him who pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P20 were marked. After trial, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the PFA Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of ₹1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of both the trial court and the appellate court, the accused has preferred this revision petition.
5. I have heard Sri.Balakrishnan Gopinath, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.C.K. Suresh, Crl.R.P.No.376/2006 4 2025:KER:71853 the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. Assailing the impugned judgments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly argued that in the absence of any prescribed or validated method of analysis under Section 23(1A)(ee) and (hh) of the PFA Act, Ext.P13 report of the public analyst could not be relied on and the conviction based on the said report is unsustainable. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector and another [(2011) 1 SCC 176], the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector (2013 (3) KLT 455) and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Rasheed N.K. v. Food Inspector, Thalasserry and Another (2016 (2) KHC 679). According to the learned counsel, no rules have been framed at the relevant time under Section 23(1A)(ee) and (hh) of the Act by the Central Government defining the methods of analysis for conducting the test and also defining the laboratory where the sample of article of food or adulterants could be analysed by the public analyst under the Act. Ext.P13 report submitted by the public analyst, following whatever method they choose cannot be relied on to sustain the Crl.R.P.No.376/2006 5 2025:KER:71853 conviction against the accused under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the PFA Act, added the learned counsel.
7. In Pepsico (supra), the Apex Court has held that it is mandatory for the Central Government to prescribe laboratories under Section 23(1A)(ee) for testing of food samples/adulterants, and to prescribe methods of analysis under Section 23(1A)(hh). The learned Single Judge of this Court in Gopalakrishnan (supra) following Pepsico (supra) held that since laboratories are not defined for analysis by the public analyst and the methods of analysis were not then defined, the report of the public analyst cannot be relied on to sustain the conviction. An argument was raised before the Court that the dictum laid down in Pepsico's case (supra) was confined to the question regarding the detection of the percentage of carbofuran in the sample of pepsi involved in the said offence. Negativing the said contention, it was held that the dictum laid down in the said case is applicable to all the cases where food articles were analysed by the public analyst in the absence of defined laboratories where samples of food adulterants could be analysed by the public analyst as contemplated under Section 23(1A)(ee) in the absence of a definite method of analysis as contemplated under Section Crl.R.P.No.376/2006 6 2025:KER:71853 23(1A)(hh) of the PFA Act. Again the Division Bench of this Court in Rasheed N.K. (supra), answering a reference held that wherever the analysis has to be conducted from a laboratory to find whether the particular sample of item of the particular food article is adulterated, to form the basis for initiation of the prosecution under the PFA Act, the report of the analyst in relation to that sample must be one conducted in a laboratory defined under Section 23(1A)(ee) and since no such laboratory was defined till the repealing of the PFA Act, wherever an analysis from a laboratory was inevitable for making a report regarding the item concerned as adulterated, there cannot be any successful prosecution in the absence of such a report. It was further held that if the analysis was conducted by the public analyst under the PFA Act in a laboratory not defined in terms of Section 23(1A)(ee), in the light of Pepsico's case (supra), no prosecution will lie based on a report made after such an analysis.
8. Coming to the facts of the present case, there is no case for the prosecution that the method of analysis as per which the public analyst has found that synthetic food colour "Tartrazine" was present in the sample is a method defined as per the provisions of the Act as on the Crl.R.P.No.376/2006 7 2025:KER:71853 date of sample or on the date of analysis.
9. Therefore, I hold that the dictum laid down by the Apex court in Pepsico's case (supra), followed by the learned single Judge of this court in Gopalakrishnan (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in Rasheed (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of the case inasmuch as the laboratories are not defined for the analysis by the public analyst and the methods of analysis were not thus defined. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that Ext.P13 cannot be relied on is only to be accepted. Hence, the impugned judgments convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the PFA Act based on Ext.P13 cannot be sustained. The accused is entitled for acquittal.
The accused is acquitted of all the offences charged against him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fine imposed has already been paid. The revision petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp Crl.R.P.No.376/2006 8 2025:KER:71853 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 376/2006 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2003 IN C.C.NO. 815/1998 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, CHERTHALA Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2005 IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 471/2003 OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT II), ALAPPUZHA