Kerala High Court
P.G.Rajesh vs The Food Inspector on 31 October, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/ 3RD CHAITHRA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4168 of 2006 ( )
---------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 156/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTADATED 31-10-2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO. 66/2003 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTADATED 05-04-2004
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------
P.G.RAJESH, S/O. GOPINATHAPILLAI,
RAJESH BHAVANAM, ANAPPARA, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------
1. THE FOOD INSPECTOR,
PATHANAMTHITTAMUNICIPALITY,, PATHANAMTHITTA.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.K.RAJEEV
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
--------------------------------------
Cr.R.P. No.4168 of 2006
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2016
ORDER
Revision petitioner challenges the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Section 16(1-A)(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)
(i) read with and 2(ix)(k) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short,"the Act"). After trial, he was found guilty for the aforesaid offences. He unsuccessfully challenged the conviction and sentence before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta in a criminal appeal.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Prosecutor.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this case has been covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. Food Inspector ((2011) 1 SCC 176). Subsequent to the said decision, learned Single Judges of this Court took divergent views as to the application of the ratio in Pepsico's case to all situations. One view is that it applies to all cases wherein analysis was done by laboratories which are not notified under the Crl.RP No.4168/2006 2 provisions of the Act and Rules. Another view is that it applied only to certain kinds of food articles mentioned in the decision. Noticing these divergent views, a reference was made to a larger bench and ultimately as per order on Crl.R.P.No.1814 of 2002 and connected case, a Division Bench of this Court has pronounced on the matter. Now, the position is that the principle in Pepsico's case applies to offences of food adulteration, except in the case where there was no licence obtained from the vendor for vending the food article. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that he sold banana chips with tartrazine colour in violation of Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The factum of adulteration was decided on the basis of Ext.P17 certificate issued by the Central Food Laboratory. Admittedly that lab was not notified for analysing the food item involved in the case. In the admitted set of facts, the principles in Pepsico's case and the finding in Crl.R.P.No.1814 of 2002 and connected case cover the issue. The conviction and sentence have become bad in view of the subsequent changes.
In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner in C.C.No.66 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta and confirmed in Crl.Appeal No.156 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad Hoc) Fast Track Court II, Pathanamthitta are hereby set aside. He is set Crl.RP No.4168/2006 3 free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks