ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.2.2005 in Crl.Appeal No.35/2004 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Kottayam (for short 'the appellate court') confirming the judgment dated 31.12.2003 in C.C.No.371/1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom (for short 'the trial court').

2. The revision petitioner is the accused. He faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 2(1-a)(a)(m) r/w S.7(i)(iii) and S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the PFA Act') and Rules 23, 24, 29 and 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the PFA Rules').

3. The case of the prosecution in short is that, on

16.12.1988 at 1 pm., PW1, the Food Inspector of Ettumanoor Circle inspected Modern Bakery functioning in Door No.VP V/132 of Ambika Market, Ettumanoor Panchayat, belonging to the revision petitioner and purchased 600 gms. of banana chips from the revision petitioner who was found conducting sale there. He prepared samples in accordance with law and sent the same for examination by public analyst. The report of the public analyst indicated that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed and it contained synthetic food colour “tartrazine” and hence adulterated. It was further found that the revision petitioner did not have PFA licence during the said period. Accordingly, prosecution was launched against the revision petitioner.

4. The revision petitioner appeared at the trial court.

The particulars of the offences were read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty. After hearing both sides, charge was framed by the trial court against the revision petitioner. The charge was read over and explained to him who pleaded not guilty.

5. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P20 were marked. Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the defence.

6. After trial, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under Sections 2(1-a)(a)(m) read with Section 7(i)(iii) and Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act and Rules 23, 24, 29 and 50(1) of the PFA Rules. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month more under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days more under Rule 50(1) of the PFA Rules. The appellate court, in appeal, confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below, the revision petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.

7. I have heard Sri.Revikrishnan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Sanal P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent.

8. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly argued that in the absence of any prescribed or validated method of analysis under Section 23(1A)(ee) and (hh) of the PFA Act, Ext.P13 report of the public analyst could not be relied on and the conviction based on the said report is unsustainable. The learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector [(2011) 1 SCC 176], the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector (2013 (3) KLT 455) and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rasheed N.K. v. Food Inspector, Thalasserry and Another (2016 (2) KHC 679). According to the learned counsel, no rules have been framed at the relevant time under Section 23(1A)(ee) and (hh) of the Act by the Central Government defining the methods of analysis for conducting the test and also defining the laboratory where the sample of article of food