IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2006 of 2006() ------------------------- CC.2/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------- A.C.SIVARAJ, SARAVANA NIVAS, M.G.STREET, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM CORPORATION. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT AND STATE. --------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: MM Crl.MC.No. 2006 of 2006() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31-12-2002 FILED BY THE FOOD INSPECTOR,ADOOR BEFORE THE COURT OF JUDICIAL Ist CLASS MAGISTRATE ADOOR. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE FORM III REPORT NO.28 DATED 08-08-2002 OF THE PUBLIC ANALYST ISSUED WITH REFERENCE FROM THE SAME FOOD SAMPLE ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS DATED 03-03-2003 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL FOOD LABORATORY RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE MM N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2006 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 Order This petition is filed by the 2nd accused in C.C.No.2 of 2003 of the J.F.C.M.Court, Adoor. On 24.6.2002 the Food Inspector purchased 12 packets of food article “supari”. It was sampled and sealed as per the provisions of the P.F.A.Act and Rules. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst. As per form 3 report, the Public Analyst certified that the sample contained artificial sweetener - sodium saccharin in excess of the prescribed limit and therefore it was adulterated. On getting notice of the initiation of the prosecution, the accused filed application for sending the other sample to the Central Food Laboratory for examination. Annexure C report was sent to the court in which it was certified that when test for saccharin was conducted, it did not contain not more than 4000 ppm. The permissible limit is upto 4000 ppm. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the food article sold to the Food Inspector was not adulterated. But in Annexure C report, it was stated that there was contravention of Crl.M.C.2006/06 2 Rule 32 (d), (e) and (f) of P.F.A.Rules, 1955. Rule 32(d) mandates that the net content by weight or volume or number, as the case may be, shall be declared on every package of food and batch identification also should be listed, the month and year in capital letters and upto which date the product is best for consumption should also be noted on the label. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this was not mentioned in the original complaint filed by the Food Inspector. According to the learned counsel, a new offence cannot be introduced by way of amendment of the complaint. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in Joy v. Food Inspector (2008(4) KLT 90) wherein it was held: “There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute relevant in this case enabling the complainant or the court to effect the amendment of the complaint after taking cognizance.” It is not a case where the food article sold to the Food Inspector was adulterated on some other grounds. In this case there was no adulteration at all as certified in the C.F.L.Report. Since there was no complaint regarding in the original complaint that the Crl.M.C.2006/06 3 accused has committed offence pertaining to non-compliance of the rules mentioned above, that offence cannot be added by incorporating such a plea by way of amendment. As such, further proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the offence under Section 32(d)(e)(f) of the P.F.A.Rules, 1955 cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed to the extent indicated above. But it is made clear that this does not preclude the respondent-Food Inspector from filing a fresh complaint in respect of the violation of the rules mentioned above provided there is no other legal impediment. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.2006/06 4