IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2158 of 2004() ------------------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.68/1998 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK COURT NO.1, PALAKKAD IN S.T.NO.4830/1994 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHITTUR. ........ REVN. PETITIONER: APPELANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- K.JAYASHEELAN,S/O.GURUSWAMY, GROCERY SHOP,CHAIRAM POST,VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FOOD INSPECTOR,PALAKKAD CIRCLE, VADAKARAPATHY PANCHAYATH. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.Revision Petition No.2158 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner stand convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in terms of the concurrent decisions of the courts below. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that PW1, the Food Inspector visited the shop from where the petitioner sold 45 packets, each containing 10 gms of turmeric powder which when analysed was found to be adulterated in as much as, it contained also rice starch structures in abundance. The petitioner was also accused of not possessing licence. A complaint was made by the Food Inspector (PW1) alleging infraction of Rules 44(h) and 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1957. Crl.R.P.2158/2004 - 2 - 3. From the trial court, a second sample was sent for further analysis and Ext.P15 report was obtained at the request of the accused. That report showed that the substance satisfied all the parameters fixed for turmeric powder in terms of 8.05.20.01 in Appendix B of Rules, even as regards total starch percent by weight, though it was stated that the article is an adulterated one, since microscopic examination revealed turmeric structure and rice starch structure in abundance. The presence of rice starch structure was treated as amounting to violation of rule 44(h) of the Rules. 4. Attacking the impugned judgments the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the courts below erred in law in convicting the accused on a ground referrable to infraction of Rule 32 of the Rules in as much as neither the complaint nor the version of PW1 contains any statements that there is such an accusation against the revision petitioner. In particular, he read out the re- Crl.R.P.2158/2004 - 3 - examination of the Food Inspector as PW1 to the effect that there is no complaint of the packets not carrying label and no violation of Rule 32 was alleged. There can be no dispute on this contention, going by the records. The findings of the courts below referrable to Rule 32 of the P.F.A. Rules in so far they are against the petitioner are hence vacated. 5. On the question of alleged violation of Rule 44(h) and 50(1) of the Rules, the fundamental issue would be as to whether the petitioner is proved to have sold the article in question as an article of food to PW1, the Food Inspector. The other contentions and the question regarding licence and the identity of the article are also relevant. PW2, the Mahazar witness was declared hostile to the prosecution. PW4, the Secretary of the local authority stated that no licence is issued to the petitioner under the Municipal Laws. However, he did not deny the suggestion put on behalf of the Crl.R.P.2158/2004 - 4 - accused that the premises from where the articles was purchased by the Food Inspector was one belonging to one Ramankutty Mannadiar who, according to the accused, is the licencee, owner and the person in possession of the shop in question. The defence version being that the petitioner has a tea shop nearby and he happened to be in the shop in question only because of Mannadiar had gone out, there is total dearth of legal evidence worth the quality required to enter a conviction holding that the petitioner was conducting the shop. No particulars or records of the local authority is available connecting the accused to the ownership, possession, etc, of the shop and the business. So much so, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to paragraph 18 of the Judgment of this Court in Pappu v.Food Inspector 2008(1) KLT 216 is of formidable support to the petitioner/accused. So much so, the quality of evidence on record is insufficient to hold that the petitioner is liable for any alleged violation of Rule 50(1) of the Crl.R.P.2158/2004 - 5 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The findings against him on that ground are vacated. 6. Having found that the business premises is not proved to be one that belonged to the petitioner, the only connecting evidence is Ext.P3 receipt issued by the accused to the Food Inspector. Keeping in mind, the defence version that there was no sale of any article of food, a perusal of that receipt does not by itself inspire confidence to sustain the conviction holding that the accused had sold those goods to PW1, more so, because of the quality of the evidence of PW2 which I do not find to be of any evidentiary value worth mentioning. 7. In the aforesaid background, while I do not deem it necessary to consider the contention of the petitioner that violation of Rule 44(h) of the Rules can be only in relation to “turmeric whole” and not “turmeric powder”, having found that there is Crl.R.P.2158/2004 - 6 - dearth of legal evidence to sustain a link between the petitioner and the transaction in question, the order of conviction and sentence have to go. In the result, the conviction and sentence are set aside, allowing the revision petition. The bail bond will stand cancelled and the accused will stand set at liberty forthwith. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. skr/3/6/8