IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3020 of 2008() ------------------- CC. NO. 1044/2007 PENDIGN BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT CHAVAKKAD, ORIGINALLY FILED AS CC.770/2002 AND SPLIT UPON 19/9/2007 ................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 : -------------------------------------------- M/S.KOTHARI PRODUCTS LIMITED, 24/19, THE MALL, KANPUR, REPRESENTED BY THOMAS JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY XAVIER RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED NO.2 & STATE : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE FOOD INSPEPCTOR, CHAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, CHAVKKAD, THRISSUR DT. 2. RAJESH SHAH, MANAGER, KOTHARI PRODUCTS LTD., 24,19, THE MALL, KANPUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE A1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF C.C. NO.770/2002 OF JFCM COURT, CHAVAKKAD. ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF ORDER DT. 5/9/2007 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 51/2004 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ANNEXURE A3 : COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PUBLIC ANALYST DATED 29/6/2002. ANNEXURE A4 : COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DT. 22.05.2002. ANNEXURE A5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23/12/2002. ANNEXURE A6 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/9/2007 IN CC NO. 770/2002 OF THE JFCM COURT, CHAVAKKAD. ANNEXURE A7 : COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 18/3/08. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn B.P.RAY, J. ----------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3020 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner is the accused No.2 in C.C.No.1044/07 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad under Section 2(ia)h & (ix)(k) read with Section 7(i) & (ii), 16(1A) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 5 Appendix B. A.30 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. He has been acquitted of the charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.51/04, that no offence is made out. Relevant portion of that judgment is quoted herein for ready reference: “It is vehemently contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners in these Crl.M.C.s that Pan Parag Gutka is not a standardised food item so as to attract the provisions of the Crl.MC.3020/08 2 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and that offence has been alleged taking Pan Parg Gutka as an item defined as Serial No.A.30 pan Masala. The description of Pan Parag Gutka purchased by the Food Inspector is seen from the report of the Food Inspector himself as having the following details mentioned on each packet of pan Parag Gutka as follows:- “Kothari Products Limited 24/19 the Mall Manpur 208001 Batch No.H, Mfg. June 2002 Exercise Reg.No.AAACK 5571 FXM 004 Best before within 6 months from the date of packing. Statutory warning chewing of Tobacco is injurious to Health.” The above details furnished over the packet shows that contents of Tobacco in the product is declared on the packet itself and a statutory warning also is printed to the effect that chewing of Tobacco is injurious to health. Tobacco is not a prohibited item and Pan Parag Gutka which is not a standardised food item does not fall within the definition of pan Masala under item A.30 of Appendix B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Therefore, it cannot be said that the commodity Pan Parag Gutka purchased by the Food Inspector is to maintain the standard prescribed for pan Masala by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Thus, prima facie no offence as alleged stands made out even on the allegations of the Crl.MC.3020/08 3 complainant and proceeding with trial in such cases is an abuse of the process of court.” In view of the pronouncement of this Court, prosecution against the petitioner is not maintainable and C.C.No.1044/07 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad is accordingly quashed. The Crl.M.C. is allowed. Sd/- B.P.Ray, Judge. kkb.26/7.