High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-09-26Revision petition allowed in part

Ramakrishnan v. Food Inspector and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.RP.No. 1028 of 2012 (C)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date: 2016-09-26
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition stands allowed in part. The conviction and sentence under the PF A Act, and the related penalties, are set aside due to lack of a notified laboratory and a validated method of analysis as required by the PF Act. The court directs that the petitioner is not liable under the challenged conviction; if any fines were deposited, the amount exceeding the amount ordered should be reimbursed; otherwise, no further deposit is required. The sentence under Rule 50 and Sections 7(iii) and 16(1)(a)(i) is not warranted.
Final Disposition: Revision petition allowed in part

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ramakrishnan, S/o.KUNHULAKSHMI AMMA, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, VELLIN EZHI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT

Respondents

Food Inspector, Mannarkkad Circle, (Food Inspector-Vellinezhi Panchayat), Mannarkkad-P.O., Palakkad District-678 016
State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682 031

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P. Venugopal (Advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, Sri. Ramesh Chand

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ramakrishnan, the accused, challenges a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and related rules, based on the Public Analyst’s report Ext. P12. The facts trace to 04.12.2002, when nine packets of turmeric powder were bought; one sample was analyzed and found adulterated with 25% wheat starch. The trial court and the appellate courts convicted him under sections 2(ia)(c), 7(i)(iii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the PF A Act, read with Rule 50 and Appendix BA 05.20.01. The revision petitioner contends that there was no defined laboratory for analysis and no validated method of analysis as required under Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh), so Ext. P12 cannot support a finding of adulteration. He relies on the Supreme Court decision in PepsiCo India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector to argue that reports from non-notified laboratories are not admissible and cannot form the basis of prosecution. The Kerala High Court, citing PepsiCo, Gopalakrishnan and Rasheed, agrees that where no notified laboratory and no validated method exist, the Public Analyst’s report cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the conviction and sentence are set aside; the revision petition is allowed in part. It also notes the financial directions concerning fines and emphasizes adherence to due process in PF A prosecutions and laboratory validation in admissibility of evidence.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 2(ia)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954Section 7(i)(iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955Appendix BA 05.20.01 of the PF A Rules

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner argued that Ext. P12 report cannot be used to prove adulteration because there was no defined laboratory for analysis and no validated method of analysis as required by Section 23(1-A)(ee) and (hh) of the PF Act. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in PepsiCo India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector to argue that reports from non-notified laboratories are not admissible and cannot form the basis of prosecution. He asserted that the court should acquit or at least reverse the conviction.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly set out in the document; the prosecution’s case rests on the validity of the Public Analyst’s report and the need to sustain conviction under PF Act. The respondents would have supported the contention that the analysis report is admissible and the conviction should stand, subject to compliance with the relevant penalties and license requirements. However, explicit arguments are not detailed in the text.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Food Inspector	2011 (1) SCC 176	Positive	Supreme Court held that since laboratories were not notified and tests by such laboratories were not admissible, no prosecution could be based on such report; the current court follows this principle.
Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector	2013 (3) KLT 455	Positive	Kerala High Court relied on PepsiCo and found the Public Analyst's report inadmissible; the current case echoes this reasoning.
Rasheed v. Food Inspector	2016 (2) KLT 390	Positive	Division Bench held that to initiate prosecution there must be a notified laboratory and a validated method; aligned with PepsiCo's reasoning and supported the current judgment.

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 Ramakrishnan 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** **MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/4TH ASWINA, 1938** **CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1028 OF 2012 (C) --------------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-03-2012 IN CRA NO. 51/2011 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, OTTAPALAM** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-12-2010IN ST NO.1566/2004 OF J.M.F.C.- I, OTTAPPALAM** **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **----------------------------------------** **RAMAKRISHNAN,** **S/O.KUNHULAKSHMI AMMA, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, VELLINEZHI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **----------------------------------------** **1. FOOD INSPECTOR, MANNARKKAD CIRCLE, (FOOD INSPECTOR-VELLINEZHI PANCHAYAT), MANNARKKAD-P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 016.** **2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. RAMESH CHAND** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **DST** ## **B. SUDHEENDRAKUMAR, J.** ## **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** **Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012** **- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 26th day of September, 2016 ## **O R D E R** The accused in S.T. No.1566 of 2004 on the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ottappalam, filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 2(ia)(c), 7(i)(iii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 _(for short 'the P.F.A. Act')_ read with Rule 50 read with Appendix BA 05.20.01 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 _(for short 'the P.F.A. Rules')_ 2. Heard. 3. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:- On 04.12.2002 at about 5 pm, PW1, the Food **Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012** ## **-: 2 :-** Inspector, purchased nine packets of “turmeric powder” (each packet containing 100 grams each) from the accused. After sampling as per Rules, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst filed Ext. P12 report stating that the sample did not conform to the standards prescribed for the turmeric, as it contained 25% 'wheat starch' and was therefore adulterated. 4. Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P26 were marked for the prosecution. DW1 was examined for the revision petitioner. 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 PFA Act, Ext.P12 report of analyst cannot be **Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012** **-: 3 :-** 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_ [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 **Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012** ## **-: 4 :-** 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's case (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 P.F.A. 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 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.P12 **Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012** ## **-: 5 :-** report of analyst 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 Sections 2(ia)(c), 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act read with Appendix BA 05.20.01 of the P.F.A. Rules, cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same. 8. The court below awarded a fine of Rs.500/and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for 15 days under Rule 50 of the PFA Rules read with Sections 7(iii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act stating that the revision petitioner did not have licence to sell the food item during the relevant time. There is nothing on record to **Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012** ## **-: 6 :-** show that the revision petitioner had the requisite licence during the relevant time to sell the food item. In the said circumstance, the conviction passed by the courts below under Rule 50 of the Rules read with Sections 7(iii) and 16(1)(a)(i) of the P.F.A. Act does not warrant any interference by this Court. The sentence awarded by the courts below also does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed in part as above. If the revision petitioner had already deposited the amount towards fine as directed by the court below as per order dated 11.05.2012 in Crl.M.A. No.3576 of 2012, the revision petitioner need not deposit any further amount to comply with **Crl. R.P. No. 1028 of 2012** **-: 7 :-** the direction regarding fine. If the revision petitioner had deposited any excess amount, the revision petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the same from the trial court. Sd/- **B. SUDHEENDRAKUMAR, JUDGE** DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge