Kerala High Court
George S/O. Geevarghese vs The Food Inspector on 2 November, 2012
Author: S. Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/11TH KARTHIKA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1202 of 2004 (A)
--------------------------------
CRA.105/1997 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA
CC.170/1995 of J.M.F.C.,RANNI
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
--------------------------------------------
GEORGE S/O. GEEVARGHESE,
KANNARAYIL, KUMBAZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.SHAJI
SMT.T.K.PRASEEDA
COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------
1. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA
CIRCLE, PATHANAMTHITTA.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Crl. R.P. No. 1202 of 2004
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 2nd day of November, 2012.
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C. No. 170/1995 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni. The prosecution was for offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)
(i)(d), 2(ia)(m) and 7(i), 7(vii) and Rule 50(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution case as extracted from the judgment of the Magistrate is as follows:
"On 14.11.94 at 11 AM the complainant inspected Vadasserikara Provisional Store which was functioning in building No. 207 in Ward VIII of Vadassserikara Panchayat of which A1 is the licence and purchased 375 gm. of refined cotton seed oil for sending it for analysis after complying with the legal formalities and report was obtained from the Public Analyst stating that the sample does not conform to the standard prescribed for the refined cotton seed oil under PFA rules and is therefore adulterated and A1 refused to produce property purchase bill to the complainant for the purchase of articles and conducted the shop without having PFA licence and the adulterated refined cotton seed oil was packed and marketed by A2 through her company A3 Hakkim Traders and thereby committed the offences."
2. After trial, the Magistrate convicted the accused as follows:
"A1 is convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.,1000/- i/d R.I. for 2 months for Crl. R.P. No. 1202 of 2004 -: 2 :- the offence u/s 7(iii) and Rule 50(i) r/w 16(1)(a)(i) of PFA Act. A2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i/d R.I. for 2 months for the offence u/s 7(iii) and Rule 50(i) r/w 16(1)a(i) and is convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/3 R.I. for 2 months for the offence u/s 16(1)a(i), 2(ia) r/w 7(i) of PFA Act. A3 is convicted and sentenced to pya a fine of Rs.300/- each for each of the offence u/s 16(1)a(i), 2(ia) 7(i) and 16(1)a(1) , 7(iii) and Rule 50(i) of the PFA Act. A1 is found not guilty of the offence u/s 16(1)(d) and is acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C."
3. The petitioner filed Crl.A. No. 105/1997 before the Additional District and Sessions Court (Ad hoc)-I, Pathanamthitta. The same was heard along the Crl. A. No. 101/1997 filed by accused nos. 2 and 3. Ultimately, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the other two accused of all charges against them and the petitioner of all offences, except the offence under the last proviso to Section 16(1) of the PFA Act. For the same, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for seven days. The judgments of the courts below are under challenge in this Criminal R.P..
4. The petitioner's contention is that he was not guilty of the offence for which he has been convicted. According to him, at the relevant time, he had not started selling goods Crl. R.P. No. 1202 of 2004 -: 3 :- from his stores, since his application for licence was pending. According to him, the Food Inspector forced him to sell the refined cotton seed oil by coercion. He would also submit that even assuming that he had sold the oil to the Food Inspector, the violation is purely technical insofar as he applied for PFA licence on 4.11.1994, the inspection was conducted on 14.11.1994, the licence was issued on 19.11.1994 and the purchase by the Food Inspector was on 14.11.1994. Therefore, if at all, the violation alleged is only of a technical nature insofar as pursuant to an application for licence on 4.11.1994, the petitioner was issued with a licence on 19.11.1994 and the purchase by the Food Inspector happened to be in between. The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore submit that even assuming that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged, insofar as it is a purely technical, the petitioner should not be visited with the sentence of imprisonment.
5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
6. Insofar as the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have concurrently found that the petitioner had, in fact, sold the refined cotton seed oil to the Food Inspector, I do not think that I will be justified in interfering with that finding of fact, since I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below. But, I think that the petitioner is well founded in his argument that the offence committed by him is of a technical nature. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to interfere with the Crl. R.P. No. 1202 of 2004 -: 4 :- punishment of imprisonment to some extent.
7. Accordingly, I modify the punishment of imprisonment into one till the rising of the court. But the punishment of fine and default sentence would stand. The petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate to undergo the sentence of imprisonment, after paying the fine, on 26.11.2012.
The Criminal R.P. is disposed of as above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.