High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-09-27Partly allowed; see court decision.

Crl.Revision Petition No.1285 of 2012 (C.P. Martin v. Food Inspector and State of Kerala)

Case / Petition Number:Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1285 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date: 2016-09-27
Court Decision / Holding: Revision petition allowed in part; conviction under Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) PFA Act cannot be sustained; conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Rule 50(1) PFA Rules remains, but sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 500 with in-default to simple imprisonment for five days; petitioner to surrender on 01.12.2016.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed; see court decision.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C.P. Martin

Respondents

Food Inspector, Mananthavady Circle, Wayanad District
State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M.A Abdul Hakhim
• Sri M.G. Anon
• Sri Joseph George (Kannamuzha)

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, Sri C.K. Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal revision petition filed by C.P. Martin challenging a concurrent conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, arising from the sale of adulterated coconut oil and lack of a valid licence. On 14.10.2004, the Food Inspector purchased 750 ml of coconut oil. The specimen was analysed by a Public Analyst, whose report Ext. P13 stated adulteration. The prosecution relied on this report to convict under sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) read with 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the PF A Act, and Rule 50(1) of the PF A Rules. The defense contended that no notified laboratory existed and no validated method of analysis was prescribed under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh), making Ext. P13 inadmissible, citing Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector and Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector. The High Court agreed that Ext. P13 could not sustain the charge under 7(i)/2(ia)(m) and 16(1)(a)(i), but held that the petitioner was not devoid of liability for offence under 16(1)(a)(ii) with the licence deficiency and modified the sentence. The revision petition was allowed in part, directing surrender on 1.12.2016.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 7(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954Section 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Notified laboratory and validated method of analysis under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the PF A Act are mandatory for admissibility of analysis.
Public Analyst's report is inadmissible if laboratory is not notified or method not validated.
Judicial authorities rely on apex court decisions such as Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector to determine admissibility of analytical reports.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the ext. P13 is not admissible because no laboratory was notified for the analysis and no validated method of analysis was prescribed under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He contended that without compliance with the statutory requirements, the Public Analyst's report cannot sustain a conviction for adulteration. He relied on Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector (2011) 1 SCC 176, where the apex court held that reports based on unnotified laboratories or non-validated tests cannot form the basis for prosecution. He also cited Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector (2013) 3 KLT 455 as recognizing the inadmissibility of such reports in evidence. The counsel argued that entry of Ext. P13 as evidence is impermissible, and therefore the conviction under Section 7(i) and Section 2(ia)(m) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) cannot stand. Finally, he urged that at the least, the sale without a valid PFA licence under Rule 50(1) should be considered separately. He sought quashing the impugned conviction on the adulteration counts and altering the sentence appropriately.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector	2011 (1) SCC 176	Positive	Apex Court held that without a notified laboratory and a validated method of analysis, the evidence from Public Analyst is not admissible; the present court applies this principle to set aside the Ext. P13 report.
Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector	2013 (3) KLT 455	Positive	Holds that the Public Analyst's report may be inadmissible in absence of compliance with Section 23(1-A)(ee)/(hh); cited to support the Pepsico principle.
Rasheed v. Food Inspector	2016 (2) KLT 390	Positive	Division Bench endorsed the requirement of a notified laboratory and validated analysis under Section 23(1-A)(ee)/(hh) as a precondition to prosecute; cited as supportive authority.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Crl.Revision Petition No.1285 of 2012 (C.P. Martin v. Food Inspector and State of Kerala) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/5TH ASWINA, 1938 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1285 of 2012 () -------------------------------Crl.A 22/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA CC 95/2005 of J.M.F.C.-II, SULTHANBATHERY ## REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- C.P.MARTIN, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.PAUL,CHIRAPPARAMBIL HOUSE,KALADY,NEELESWARAM.P.O, PIN-673572. BY ADVS.SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.M.G.ANON SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (KANNAMPUZHA) RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/COMPLAINANT & STATE : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ## 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, MANANTHAVADY CIRCLE,WYNAD DISTRICT,PIN-683545. ## 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.K.PRASAD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.1285 of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27[th] day of September 2016 ## O R D E R The accused in C.C. No.95 of 2005 on the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - 11, Sulthan Bathery filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) read with Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act') and Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the P.F.A Rules'). 2. Heard. Crl.R.P.1285/2012 : 2 : 3. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:- On 14.10.2004 at about 2 p.m., PW1, the Food Inspector, purchased 750 m.l. of coconut oil from the petitioner. After complying with the legal formalities, one sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst filed Ext. P13 report stating that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for coconut oil and hence, the sample was adulterated. It is also alleged that the revision petitioner did not have the requisite licence under the P.F.A. Rules to sell the food item. 4. Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P24(a) were marked for the prosecution. DW1 and DW2 were examined on the side of the revision petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has Crl.R.P.1285/2012 : 3 : argued that since no laboratory for the analysis of the food item was defined and no validated method of analysis was prescribed as per the mandate of Section 23 (1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the PFA Act, Ext. P13 report of the Public Analyst cannot be acted upon to hold that the food item purchased by the Food Inspector was adulterated. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector [(2011) 1 SCC 176] to buttress his argument. 6. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holdings (supra) that since the Laboratories were not notified and the tests conducted by such laboratories were not admissible in evidence, no prosecution could be based on such report. In the decision of this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector Crl.R.P.1285/2012 : 4 : [2013 (3) KLT 455], the court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holdings (supra) and found that the Public Analyst's report was not admissible in evidence and accordingly, the Court acquitted the accused. The Division Bench of this Court in Rasheed v. Food Inspector [2016 (2) KLT 390] considered the above question on a reference by a learned Single Judge. The Division Bench in Rasheed (supra) 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 as held by the Apex Court in Pepsico Holdings (supra). 7. In this case, admittedly, the laboratory for the analysis of food item was not defined and no validated Crl.R.P.1285/2012 : 5 : method of analysis of the food item was prescribed as mandated under Section 23 (1-A) (ee) and (hh) of the P.F.A. Act. Therefore, Ext. P13 report of analysis cannot be acted upon to hold that the food item purchased in this case was adulterated in view of the decision of the Apex court in Pepsico India Holdings (supra). Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under of Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) P.F.A. Act cannot be sustained. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of P.F.A. Act stand set aside. 8. The courts below concurrently found that the revision petitioner sold the food articles without having a valid licence under the P.F.A. Rules. There is no material Crl.R.P.1285/2012 : 6 : before the court to show that the revision petitioner had any valid licence under the P.F.A. Rules during the period in question. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the verdict of guilty and conviction passed by the courts below under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the P.F.A. Act read with Rule 50(1) of the P.F.A. Rules. 9. As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. There is no previous conviction against the revision petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the P.F.A. Act read with Rule 50(1) of P.F.A. Rules can be modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default to Crl.R.P.1285/2012 : 7 : simple imprisonment for five days, to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly I order so. In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part as above. The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on 1.12.2016 to suffer the sentence. Sd/- **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** _dl/28.9.2016_ _// True Copy //_ _PA to Judge_