Kerala High Court
Abdul Jaleel D.V vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2016
Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
SATURDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 5254 of 2015 ()
---------------------------
LPC 69/2004 of J.M.F.C.,KUTHUPARAMBA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-------------------------------
ABDUL JALEEL D.V., AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. ABOOTTY HAJI, SHANAS, KUTHUPARAMBA P.O.,
KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT,
(OWNER AND PFA LICENCEE, HOTEL ROLEX,
DOOR NO. KMC 20/180, 183, 184, KUTHUPARAMBA.)
BY ADVS.SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)
SRI.V.R.NASAR
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. FOOD INSPECTOR,
KUTHUPARMBA MUNICIPALITY, KUTHUPARAMBA,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670 643.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. SMT REKHA C NAIR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-
2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.M.C. 5254/2015
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
ANNEX.1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN LPC 69/2004 OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
PA TO JUDGE
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C. No.5254 of 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of December 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in L.P.C. No.69 of 2004 on the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuthuparamba. The offences alleged against the petitioner are the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(i)(a)(j)(m) and Section 7(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act') and Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the P.F.A. Rules').
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section Crl.M.C.5254/2015 2 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing Annexure 1 complaint and further proceedings in the above said case.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The prosecution case is that on 31.1.2002 at about 2.05 p.m., the Food Inspector, purchased three plates of Biriyani rice from the petitioner. After sampling as per the rules, one sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst filed report stating that the sample contained tartrazine, and hence the sample was adulterated. Thereafter, on the request of the petitioner, the second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Annexure-A1(4) Certificate of the Central Food Laboratory would show that the sample contained presence of water soluble synthetic colour tartarzine in Crl.M.C.5254/2015 3 violation of Rule 29 of the PFA Rules, and was therefore adulterated.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector [(2011) 1 SCC 176] and the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Rasheed v. Food Inspector [2016 (2) KLT 390] and argued that since no laboratory for the analysis of the food item was defined and no validated method of analysis was prescribed as mandated under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the PFA Act, Annexure A1(4) cannot be acted upon to hold that the food item purchased by the Food Inspector was adulterated. In Pepsico India (supra), the Apex Court held that since laboratories were not notified and the tests conducted by Crl.M.C.5254/2015 4 such laboratories were not admissible in evidence, no prosecution could be based on such report. The Division Bench of this Court in Rasheed (supra) followed the decision in Pepsico India (supra) and held that if an analysis is required to initiate prosecution, there should be notified laboratory and validated method of analysis as mandated under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the PFA Act for a successful prosecution.
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 P.F.A. Act. Therefore, Annexure A1(4) cannot be acted upon to hold that the food item purchased in this case was Crl.M.C.5254/2015 5 adulterated in view of the settled law discussed above. In the said circumstances, no purpose will be served if at all prosecution is permitted to be continued. For the said reason, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to quash Annexure A1 complaint and further proceedings in L.P.C.No.69/2004 on the files of the court below, to secure the ends of justice and accordingly I order so.
In the result, this petition stands allowed, quashing Annexure A1 complaint and all further proceedings against the petitioner in L.P.C.No.69 of 2004 on the files of the court below.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE dl/.19.12.2016 // True Copy // PA to Judge