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. 1623 of 2012 CRL.A 243/2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM DATED 21-02-2012 ST 1/2004 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 31-03-2006 PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 3 AND 4: 1. P.M.MURUGESAN (NOMINEE), MANAGER, LION DATA IMPLEX (P) LIMITED, 4-A/3, CAUVERY ROAD, TRICHY - 620 002. 2. LION DATES IMPLEX (P) LIMITED, 4-A/3, CAUVERY ROAD, TRICHY - 620 002, TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY P.M. MURUGESAN. BY ADV. SRI.N.A.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: 1. CHIEF FOOD INSPECTOR, MOBILE VIGILANCE SQUAD KAKKANAD, KOCHI -30, REPRESENTED BY FOOD INSPECTOR, KOTTAYM MUNICIPALITY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.PRASAD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ [ENTITY], J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl. R.P. No.1623 of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of September, 2016 O R D E R
Accused Nos.3 and 4 in [CASE NUMBER] on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short 'the [ACT]') and [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short' the [ACT]').
2. Heard.
3. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:-
On 04.09.2003, PW1, the Food Inspector, purchased six bottles of 'honey', each bottle contained 100 gram each, from the 1st accused. The 2nd accused is the licensee of the said shop and the 3rd accused is the nominee of the 4th accused firm, which manufactured the food item. After complying with the legal formalities, one sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst submitted Ext.P11 report stating that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for honey under the [ACT] and was therefore adulterated. Thereafter, on the request of the accused, the second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Ext.P17 certificate of the Central Food Laboratory would also show that the sample did not conform to the standard as per [ACT] and was therefore, adulterated.
4. Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.P1 to P29 were marked for the prosecution. DW1 and DW2 were examined on the side of the defence.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners 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] of the [ACT], Ext. P17 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 [PRECEDENT] to buttress his argument.
6. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] (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 [PRECEDENT], this Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT] (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 [PRECEDENT] considered the above question on a reference by a learned Single Judge. The Division Bench in [PRECEDENT]'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] of the [ACT] for a successful prosecution as held by the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] (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] of the [ACT]. Therefore, Ext.P17 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 [PRECEDENT] (supra). Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] of the [ACT] cannot be sustained.
In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] and the revision petitioners are acquitted for the said offence. The bail bonds of the revision petitioners stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.
[ENTITY], JUDGE DST True copy P.A. To Judge