IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 765 of 1997() ----------------------------- CRA.281/1995 of IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.295/1991 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- MUSSADIK, PROPRIETOR, INDIAN FOODS AND FLAVOURS, DOOR NO.VI/621, KUNNATHUPADAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------- 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, EDAPPALLY CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY PANCHAYAT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J. ----------------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.765 OF 1997 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner who has been found guilty under sections 2(1a) (m) and (7)(i) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, both by the trial court and the Appellate court has preferred this revision petition. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/= and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offences mentioned above. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that PW1, the Food Inspector, Edappally Circle had purchased a bottle containing 700ml of coconut vinegar from the provision store of one T.M.Ibrahim (accused No.1) on December 8, 1986 for the purpose of analysis. The purchase was made after giving Form No.6 notice. The contents of the vinegar was sampled in three separate bottles in conformity with the procedural formalities as contemplated under the Act and the Rules. The Public Analyst CRL.R.P.NO.765/97 2 on analysis found that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Act and the Rules and therefore it was adulterated. 3. Shri Ibrahim was arraigned as accused No.1 and the petitioner herein as accused No.2. The petitioner was implicated since admittedly he was the manufacturer of the article of food in question. The trial court had initially found the two accused guilty and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced. But, this Court, in revision set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against accused No.1. In the meanwhile, the appellate court remitted the case of the petitioner back to the trial court for disposal after questioning him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. afresh. After remand, the trial court found the petitioner guilty and he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier. The appellate court confirmed the above order of conviction and sentence. Hence this revision petition. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of analysis at the Central Food Laboratory (Exhibit P11) clearly revealed that the acetic acid content in the sample in grams/100ml was 5.7 which was much higher than the normal CRL.R.P.NO.765/97 3 standard (3.75). The only deficiency was total solids which was found to be 0.52% w/v and also percentage of ash which was found to be 0.05. 5. Appendix A.19.02 of the Rule describes the standard prescribed for vinegar. Appendix A.19.02 is extracted hereunder. Vinegar shall conform to the following standards:- 1. It shall contain at least 3.75 grammes of acetic acid per 100 ml. 2. It shall contain at least 1.5 per cent w/v of total solids and 0.18 per cent of ash. 3. It shall not contain (i) sulphuric acid or any other mineral acids, (ii) lead or copper, (iii) arsenic in amounts exceeding 1.5 parts per million, and (iv) any foreign substance or colouring matter except caramel. A perusal of Exhibit P11 report shows that the test for mineral acids was negative. Coal tar dye was absent. There was no lead or copper and arsenic ppm was 0.0279. In other words, all parameters except total solids and ash were within the permissible limits. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that contents of total solids and ash were only marginally less. On the contrary, the content of acetic acid which is the main ingredient CRL.R.P.NO.765/97 4 of vinegar was high which indicated that vinegar was otherwise of good quality. There is considerable force in the above contention. 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and particularly for the reason that the alleged offence was committed by the petitioner way back in the year 1986, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. A perusal of the report will show that the marginal variation could have been due to various natural factors since the article was admittedly not a synthetic product. Fermentation and other natural factors might have had their influence on the ingredients or components of vinegar at the relevant point of time. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that at this distance of time, petitioner need not be sent to jail and that too in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence is set aside. Petitioner is acquitted. Revision petition is allowed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. dsn