M. Abdul Rahiman v. Food Inspector, Corporation of Kochi, Ernakulam & State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date: 2016-01-18
Court Decision / Holding: Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence under sections 2(ia)(a)(m), 7(i)(v), 16(ia) of the PFA Act set aside; the accused acquitted; bail bond cancelled; the revision petitioner set at liberty.
Final Disposition: Acquitted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M. Abdul Rahiman
Amina Stores
Margin Free Super Market, Edappally Gate, Kochi-24

Respondents

Food Inspector, Corporation of Kochi, Ernakulam
State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri N.A. Muraleedharan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. V.S. Sreejith

Case Synopsis & Summary

This criminal revision challenges a concurrent conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for adulteration of coconut oil. The accused were convicted under sections 2(ia)(a)(m), 7(i)(v) and 16(ia) of the PFA Act, with their sentences affirmed by the lower courts. Prosecution evidence included a coconut oil sample tested by the Public Analyst and a second sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory, with Ext. P13 certifying adulteration. The defense submitted that no laboratory for analysis was defined and no validated analytical method was prescribed under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh), rendering Ext. P13 inadmissible, citing Pepsico India Holdings v. Food Inspector (2011) and the Kerala decision Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector. The trial and appellate courts had not accepted these objections. The Kerala High Court, however, examined these authorities and held that the laboratory used was not notified and no validated method existed, making Ext. P13 unreliable for conviction. Relying on Pepsico and GK, the court concluded that the conviction could not be sustained and allowed the revision petition, acquitting the accused. The bail bond of the revision petitioner was cancelled and he was set at liberty, underscoring the necessity of compliant laboratory procedures under the PFA Act.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Admissibility of laboratory analysis under PFA Act requires a notified laboratory and validated methods (Pepsico India Holdings v. Food Inspector).
Public Analyst's report is not admissible if it comes from a non-notified laboratory (as applied in Pepsico and Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner's counsel submitted that since no laboratory for analysis was defined and no validated method of analysis was prescribed under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the PFA Act, Ext. P13 cannot be acted upon to hold that the food item purchased by the Food Inspector was adulterated; relied on Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector (2011) 1 SCC 176 to press acquittal.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly stated in the document; the court’s reasoning centers on applying Pepsico and GK to determine the admissibility of the lab report.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd v. Food Inspector	(2011) 1 SCC 176	Positive	Laboratories not notified render test reports inadmissible; forms the basis for acquittal in this case.
Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector	2013 (3) KLT 455	Positive	Kerala High Court relied on Pepsico and held Public Analyst's report inadmissible; corroborates the 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 MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2029 of 2010 ( ) --------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 854/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 29-05-2010 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 1589/2000 of J.M.F.C.-II, ALUVA DATED 13-08-2004 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AMINA STORES, MARGIN FREE SUPER MARKET, EDAPPALLY GATE, KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.N.A.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------- ## 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. ## 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J. ..................................................... Crl.R.P. No. 2029 of 2010 ..................................................... Dated this the 18[th] day of January, 2016 ## ORDER The accused in S.T. No. 1589 of 2000 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Aluva has filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 2(ia) (a)(m) and 7 (i) (v) and 16(ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954(“the PFA Act” for short). 2. Heard. 3. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:- On 8-6-2000 at about 12.30 p.m., PW1 the Food 2 :- Crl.R.P. No. 2029 of 2010 Inspector purchased 750 grams of coconut oil from the shop of the accused. After taking samples as per rules, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst, after analysis, reported that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for coconut oil under the P.F.A. Rules, and was therefore, adulterated. On the request of the accused, the 2nd sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Ext. P13 is the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory, which would show that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for coconut oil and, was therefore, adulterated. 4. Before the trial Court, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts. P1 to P17 were marked for the prosecution. DW1 was examined on the side of the Crl.R.P. No. 2029 of 2010 3 :- defence. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted 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 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. 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 4 :- Crl.R.P. No. 2029 of 2010 mandated under Section 23 (1-A) (ee) and (hh) of the P.F.A. Act . Therefore, Ext.P13 certificate 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). 7. It was held by the 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 and the accused was entitled to get acquittal. 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 (supra) and found that the Public Analyst's report was not Crl.R.P. No. 2029 of 2010 5 :- admissible in evidence and accordingly, the Court acquitted the accused. The matter was referred to a Division Bench and the Division Bench also affirmed the said decision, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Even otherwise, in view of the decision in Pepsico **(supra),** the conviction cannot be sustained as no laboratory was notified and no validated method of analysis was specified as mandated under Section 23 (1-A) (ee) and (hh) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 2(ia) (a)(m) and 7 (i) (v) and 16(ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 6 :- Crl.R.P. No. 2029 of 2010 and the revision petitioner is acquitted for the said offence. The bail bond of the revision petitioner stands cancelled and he is set at liberty. **Sd/-B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.** ani/18/1/16 /true copy/ P.S. to Judge Crl.R.P. No. 2029 of 2010 7 :- ## B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J. ..................................................... Crl.R.P. 634 of 2003 ..................................................... Dated this the 6[th] day of January, 2016 ORDER