The court ruled that reports from non-specified laboratories under the PFA Act render prosecutions unsustainable.

1. This revision petition has been filed under S.397 and S.401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'CrPC' for convenience) challenging concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur in S.T. No.6435/2002 dated 17.12.2008 and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.A. No.24/2009 dated 31.10.2015.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution. Perused the relevant documents available in this matter.

3. Summary of the prosecution case is as under: - The prosecution would allege that at about 11.30 a.m. on 16.07.2002 when the Food Inspector inspected the shop owned by the 1st accused where the 2nd accused was present as the nominee of the 3rd accused, adulterated turmeric powder meant for sale was found, that too without licence to sell the same. Soon after recovery of the adulterated turmeric powder, prosecution launched alleging commission of offences punishable under S.2(ia)(a) & (m)7(i)(V), 16(1)a(i), 17(i)(a)(i) and (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred as 'PFA Act' for convenience) and R.5 appendix 'B' item A - 05-20-01 and R.50 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1954.

4. The trial court took cognizance of the above offences and secured the presence of the accused for trial. Thereafter, during trial, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P25 were marked on the side of the complainant. When opportunity was given to the accused to adduce defence evidence after questioning the accused under S.313(1)(b) of the CrPC, one witness got examined as DW1.

5. On consideration of the available materials, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under S.16(1)a(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii)(g)(ii) of the PFA Act, 1954 and accordingly the accused were convicted and sentenced as under:
"The 1st accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees Thousand), in default of which, simple imprisonment for three months u/s. 16(1) (a)(i) of the PFA Act. The 1st accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred), in default of which, simple imprisonment for 1 1/2 (one and half) months under proviso to S.16(1)(a)(ii)(g)(ii) of the Act. The 2nd accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which simple imprisonment for three months u/s.16(1)(a)(i) r/w. 17(1) of the Act. Substantive sentence against A1 shall run concurrently."

6. Though the accused / revision petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court before the Appellate Court, as per judgment dated 31.10.2015 in Crl.A. No.24/2009, the Appellate Court also confirmed the conviction and sentence.

7. Now the accused have preferred revision challenging the concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence.

8. While impeaching the concurrent verdicts, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued two specific points. The first point argued is that, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on the revision petitioners under S.16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act will not stand in the eye of law since Ext.P20 report of the laboratory obtained to prove that the turmeric powder was adulterated is not a specified / notified laboratory as provided under S.23(1A)(ee) of the PFA Act.

9. In support of his contentions, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners further that, in the decision reported in Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited v. Food Inspecto