IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.L.P..No. 922 of 2010() -------------------------- CC.663/2004 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... (S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------- K.J.JOSEPH, S/O.JOHN K.M., KOOTTUNGAL HOUSE, ANCHIRI P.O., FOOD INSPECTOR, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE: --------------------------------- 1. IQBAL K.A., SURAJ MANZIL, KALOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM (MALABAR CHIPS, YMCA ROAD, KOTTAYAM.) 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.K.ASHKAR FOR R1 SMT.ASHIRA MOHAMED ASHROF FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL. THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Crl.L.P. No.922 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 16th September, 2010. O R D E R This leave petition arises from an order of acquittal passed under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. A complaint was filed by the appellant against first respondent, alleging offences under Sections 2(ia)(j) read with Sections 16(1)(a), 7(i), (iii), Rules 23, 24, 29 and 50(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. As per the allegations in the complaint, the complainant inspected the shop of the accused and purchased banana chips, after complying with the legal formalities. Samples were taken and it was sent for analysis to the analyst. On analysis, it was found to be adulterated. Therefore, the complaint was filed. 3. Evidence was adduced on the side of the prosecution. The accused took up a contention that the article did not belong to the accused and that the business belonged to another person. But, the accused did not adduce any evidence. 4. On an analysis of the evidence in this case, the Crl.L.P. NO.922/10 2 court found that Ext.P13 report of the Central Food Laboratory shows that the sample in question conforms to Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It is well settled that the report of the Central Food Laboratory will supersede the report of the Public Analyst and the former is conclusive. In the above circumstances, the order of acquittal cannot be said to be unsustainable. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below committed an error in holding that the appellant is not the licensee. Ext.P14, a letter issued from the Municipality itself is proof for the fact that the licence is in the name of first respondent. Therefore, the finding of the lower court that first respondent is not the licensee and hence, he is entitled for acquittal is not sustainable, it is argued. 6. However, learned counsel for appellant has no answer to the fatal finding in Ext.P13, the report of the Central Food Laboratory, which shows that the sample is not adulterated. Since that ground itself is sufficient to acquit the accused, I need not go into the question regarding licence. Even if he is the licensee, he cannot be prosecuted for being in possession an article, which conforms to the standard prescribed in the Crl.L.P. NO.922/10 3 Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The order under challenge is only sustainable. I am not inclined to grant leave. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs