IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU MONDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2007 / 11TH ASHADHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 643 of 1998() ----------------------------- CRA.216/1996 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.1692/1988 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ M.V.PETER, S/O.VARGHESE, MUKKARAPPILLY, KORATTY, KIZHAKKUMURI, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.S.R.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI C.K.SURESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.3324/1998 IN CRL.R.P.NO.643/1998 CLOSED SD/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE 02/07/2007 \\TRUE COPY// K.R.UDAYABHANU, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Crl.R.P.No.643/1998 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007 O R D E R The revision petitioner, who is the first accused in S.T.No.1692/1998, in the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakkudy, stands convicted for the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as the coriander powder purchased by the Food Inspector from the shop of the accused contained more ash content, that is, 9.1%, which is more than the content prescribed in the standard A.05.08.01 of Appendix (B) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, that is, 7%. The date of purchase by the Food Inspector is dated 09/01/1996, at about 1 p.m.. The ground stressed by the counsel for the revision petitioner is that there is no evidence in support of the version of PW.1 that the accused was the licensee and that he verified the licence. It was brought out from the evidence of PW.2, the Executive Officer of the Koratty Panchayat that no such licence has been issued to the accused. No evidence has been produced in order to establish that the accused conducted Crl.R.P.No.643/1998 -: 2 :- a shop in the area. Further more, it is pointed out that there was mistake as to the location of the shop noted in Ext.P4 mahazar and Ext.P5 Form-VII memorandum. In Ext.P4 mahazar, the place is mentioned as near house No.V/319 of Koratty Panchayat, whereas, the shop is noted as situated near house No.V/314. The courts below have not properly considered the above aspect. I find that strict proof is required on all aspects of the case, as the punishment is stringent in nature. In view of the above lapse and contradiction in the prosecution version, I find that the accused/revision petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of doubt. I find that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence alleged. In the circumstances, the orders of the courts below is set aside. The accused is acquitted. The revision petition is allowed. K.R.UDAYABHANU, Judge ms Crl.R.P.No.643/1998 -: 3 :- K.R.UDAYABHANU, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Crl.R.P.No.643/1998 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O R D E R 2nd July, 2007