Kerala High Court
P.V.R.Kutty Hassan vs State Of Kerala on 24 March, 2014
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. 3804 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CC 232/2012 of J.M.F.C.,KUTHUPARAMBA
PETITIONER:
-----------------
P.V.R.KUTTY HASSAN
S/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER, PYAR LAND HOTEL, TC ROAD, IV/823,
KUTHUPARAMBA, RESIDING AT FARHATH MANZIL, POST NEERVELI,
KUTHUPARAMBA, DISTRICT KANNUR.
BY ADVS.SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR)
SRI.V.R.NASAR
RESPONDENTS:
-------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-31.
2. FOOD INSPECTOR
KUTHUPARAMBA MUNCIPALITY, KUTHUPARAMBA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI C K PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-
2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 3804 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE-I. TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.232/2012 OF
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KUTHUPARAMBA
ANNEXURE-II. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/3/2014 IN CC
NO.232/2012 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.3804 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of December 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.232 of 2012 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 2(ia)(j) and 7(i) read with Section 16(1) of the 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.3804/2014 2 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing Annexure 1 complaint and further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 1 complaint on the files of the court below in C.C. No.232 of 2012.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The prosecution case is that on 1.7.2006 at 12.30 p.m., the Food Inspector, purchased 750 grams of chicken fry 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 synthetic food colour sunset yellow FCF and carmoisine, and was therefore adulterated under Rule 29 of the PFA Rules. Thereafter, on the request of the petitioner, the second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The Certificate of the Central Food Crl.M.C.3804/2014 3 Laboratory would show that the sample contained presence of water soluble colour and hence it contravenes the provisions 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 1 (4) Certificate of analysis cannot be acted upon to hold that the food item purchased by the Food Inspector was adulterated. Crl.M.C.3804/2014 4 In Pepsico India (supra), the Apex Court held that since laboratories were not notified and the tests conducted by 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 Crl.M.C.3804/2014 5 P.F.A. Act. Therefore, Annexure 1(4) Certificate cannot be acted upon to hold that the food item purchased in this case was 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 and consequently, I am inclined to quash Annexure A1 complaint and all further proceedings on the files of the court below.
In the result, this petition stands allowed, quashing Annexure 1 complaint and all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure 1 complaint in C.C. No.232 of 2012 on the files of the court below.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,
JUDGE
dl/.3.1.2017 // True Copy // PA to Judge