Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28041
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
K.ABDUL RASHEED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 2201 2013
SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
Failure to analyze food samples in a recognized laboratory renders the prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act invalid.
Headnote:
Food Adulteration - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Sections List: [16(1-A)(i), 2(ia)(j), 7(i), 23(1-A)(ee)] - The court ruled that absence of analysis in a government-recognized laboratory under Section 23(1-A)(ee) is fatal to prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Fact of the Case:
A food inspector purchased a sample of banana chips from an accused's shop, which was later found adulterated with prohibited substances. The first accused was convicted based on the Public Analyst's report, but appealed the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sample was not analyzed in a laboratory defined under Section 23(1-A)(ee) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, making the prosecution's case fail.
Issues: Whether the prosecution could succeed when the food sample was not analyzed in a laboratory recognized by the Central Government as mandated by Section 23(1-A)(ee) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The analysis report from a non-recognized laboratory is insufficient for prosecutions; adherence to the specific provisions of the Act is critical for establishing liability.
Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed, the appellant is acquitted.
O R D E R
The revision petition is filed questioning the legality, propriety and regularity of the judgment in Crl.A. No.126/2003 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-III), Thalassery (Appellate Court) confirming the judgment in S.T.C.No.474/1997 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thaliparamba (Trial Court), holding the revision petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 16 (1-A)(i)) r/w section 2(ia)(j) and section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 29 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short, ‘Act & Rules). The revision petitioner was the 1st accused and the respondent was the complainant before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
Prosecution case in brief:
2. The complainant's case is that, on
05.11.1996, the Food Inspector visited the shop owned by the 2nd accused, where the 1st accused was the Salesman. The Food Inspector purchased 500 gms. of banana chips sold by the 1st accused. On an analysis of one of the samples by the Public Analyst, as per Ext.P12 Form III report, it was found that the sample was adulterated as it contained tartrazine and coal tar dye which is prohibited under the PFA Rules. Therefore, the accused have committed the above offences.
3. The accused denied the substance of accusation read over to them. In the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Exts.P1 to P23 in evidence. In defence evidence the accused marked Exts.D1 to D3.
4. The Trial Court, after analysing the materials placed on record, found the 2nd accused not guilty for the above offence; but found the 1st accused guilty and consequentially, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the 1st accused filed Crl.A. No.126/2003 before the Appellate Court.
6. The Appellate Court, after re-
appreciating the materials placed on record, by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.
7. It is challenging the concurrent judgments of the courts below, the revision petition is filed.
8. Heard; V.T.Madhavanunni, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt.S.Seetha, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd v. Food Inspector and Another [ 2010 (4) KHC 767 ] and the Division Bench of this Court in Rasheed v. Food Inspector [ 2016 (2) KLT 390 ] and argued that since the sample was analysed in a laboratory not recognised by the Central Government as provided under Section 23 (1-A)(ee) of the Act, the prosecution has to fail and the revision petitioner is to be acquitted. He submitted that without even going into merits of the other grounds urged, the revision petition is to be allowed.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor on the contrary contended that the decision in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) needs to be reconsidered, particularly because Section 8 of the Act enables the Central Government and the State Government to appoint a Public Analyst for the local areas as assigned by the Central Government and State Government. In the State of Kerala, Public Analysts have been appointed invoking the above provision. Therefore, the decision in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has no application to the case on hand. Hence, the revision petition may be dismissed.
11. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned judgments.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered the judgment in Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. (supra) on 18.11.2010. Subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgment, there were several ca
