Jose Joseph v. Food Inspector, Mananthavady Circle

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date: 2016-10-25
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition stands allowed; conviction and sentence under 16(1)(a)(i) PF Act are set aside; the revision petitioner is acquitted; bail bond discharged.
Final Disposition: Acquitted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jose Joseph

Respondents

Food Inspector, Mananthavady Circle

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri B.N. Shivsankar, Advocate

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, Shri C.K. Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Jose Joseph, (the accused) challenges his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the trial court and affirmed by the lower courts, on the ground that the evidentiary basis for adulteration is defective. On 23.12.2003, a Food Inspector purchased three packets of coconut oil; samples were sent for analysis. The Public Analyst reported adulteration in Ext. P13, and Ext.C1 from the Central Food Laboratory also indicated non-conformity with prescribed standards. The defense contends that no laboratory is properly notified for analysis and no validated method of analysis is prescribed under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the PF Act, rendering Ext. C1 inadmissible. Relying on Supreme Court authority in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector (2011) and Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector (2013), the petitioner argues that non-notified laboratories cannot sustain a prosecution. The High Court agrees that Ext. C1 cannot be acted upon due to lack of a notified laboratory and validated method, following Rasheed v. Food Inspector (2016) to emphasize the need for a notified lab and validated analysis for prosecution under the PF Act. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed; the conviction and sentence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) PF Act are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. Bail bond is discharged.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the PF Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that there was no notified laboratory for the analysis and no validated method of analysis prescribed under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the PF Act; Ext. C1 cannot be acted upon to prove adulteration. He relies on Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector and Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector to support exclusion of non-notified lab reports from evidence.

Contentions of Respondents

Prosecution contends that the Central Food Laboratory report Ext. C1 is admissible evidence under the PF Act to establish adulteration and uphold the conviction.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector	2011 (1) SCC 176	Positive	Supreme Court principle that laboratories not notified and tests not conducted by such laboratories render the report inadmissible; relied upon to negate the admissibility of Ext. C1.
Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector	2013 (3) KLT 455	Mentioned Only	Earlier local decision relied on Pepsico; referenced to illustrate a line of authority regarding admissibility of Public Analyst’s reports but not central to the present ruling.
Rasheed v. Food Inspector	2016 (2) KLT 390	Positive	Division Bench held that prosecution for adulteration requires a notified laboratory and validated method; cited to support the court’s reasoning for acquittal.

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 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 902 of 2009 ( ) -------------------------------CRL.A 109/2006 of ADDL. DIST. COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA CC 171/2004 of J.M.F.C, MANANTHAVADY REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, KURUPPANATTU HOUSE, MAKKIYAD P.O., WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------- FOOD INSPECTOR, MANANTHAVADY CIRCLE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.K.PRASAD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.902 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25[th] day of October 2016 ## O R D E R The revision petitioner was found guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the P.F.A. Act') concurrently by the courts below. ## 2. Heard. 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 23.12.2003 at about 10.00 a.m., PW1, the Food Inspector, purchased 3 packets of coconut oil from the revision petitioner. After complying with the legal formalities, one sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst Crl.R.P.902/2009 : 2 : filed Ext. P13 report stating that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for the food item and hence the sample was adulterated. Thereafter, on the request of the revision petitioner, the second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Ext.C1 certificate of the Central Food Laboratory would show that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for the food item, and was therefore, adulterated. 4. Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P26 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1. Ext.C1 was also marked for the prosecution. Ext.D1 was marked for the revision petitioner. Crl.R.P.902/2009 : 3 : 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has 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 P.F.A. Act, Ext.C1 certificate of the Central Food Laboratory cannot be acted upon to hold that the food item purchased by the Food Inspector was adulterated. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners 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 Crl.R.P.902/2009 : 4 : 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 [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 Crl.R.P.902/2009 : 5 : 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 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.C1 certificate of the Central Food Laboratory 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 Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act, cannot be sustained. In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed Crl.R.P.902/2009 : 6 : setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under 16 (1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act and the revision petitioner is acquitted for the said offence. The bail bond of the revision petitioner stands discharged. Sd/- **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** _dl/.25.10.2016_ _// True Copy //_ _PA to Judge_ ## Crl.R.P.902/2009 : 7 :