C.T. Ravi Kumar, J.

1. This bunch of cases viz., Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the convicts who faced prosecution and Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed by the accused who are facing prosecution, for offences under different Sections of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "P.F.A. Act") read with different rules of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (for short, "P.F.A. Rules"), relating to food adulteration were placed before us on orders of reference. All the Crl. M.Cs. except Crl. M.C. No. 2755/2013 were referred as per order dated 25.9.2014 and all the other cases including Crl. M.C. No. 2755/2013 were subsequently referred based on the order of reference dated 25.9.2014. Apparently, the order of reference dated 25.9.2014 was made in the wake of cleavage of opinion and divergent findings made by three learned Single Judges regarding the ratio decidendi in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector, 2010 (4) KLT 706 (SC), in different cases. The questions referred to the Division Bench are as follows:

"(1) Could all the prosecutions under the Act of 1954 be stifled by raising a contenti