IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1914 of 2004(D) ------------------------------- CRA.465/2002 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, N.PARAVUR CC.80/1998 OF THE COURT OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- K.N.PRAKASH, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, RAVI SADANAM, MANAKKADU, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN & ADV.SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, MOBILE VIGILANCE SQUAD, KAKKANADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX COURT EXHIBIT: EXT.C1 - CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS NO.100/Apr/98-KER dt.24-4-1998 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL FOOD LABORATORY, GHAZIABAD. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cr.R.P.No.1914 of 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008. O R D E R 1.Certain samples were drawn on 17-6-1997 as “garlic pickle in brine”. On Ext.P12 report of the Public Analyst that the said sample does not conform to the standards prescribed for pickle in brine under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as it then stood and is therefore adulterated, P.W.1 filed the complaint on the basis of which the accused was proceeded against. On the application of the revision petitioner, the second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and as per Covering Letter dated 24-4-1998 with Ref. No.100/67/98- CFL/162, the Director of the Central Food Laboratory had forwarded Certificate of Test or Analysis of the said sample. The said certificate issued in Form II is dated 24-4-1998. However, CRRP.1914/2004 -: 2 :- the trial Court has not marked the said document for identification. Being a piece of primary evidence communicated directly by the Central Food Laboratory to the Court of first instance, no further proof of the making of that document is necessary and accordingly, the said document is received in evidence in this revision to render complete justice between the parties and is marked as Court Ext.C1. 2.Though Ext.C1 contradicted Ext.P12 in as much as the sodium chloride content in covering liquid was determined as 11.98% as against 5.9% in Ext.P12, it was stated in Ext.C1 that the sample is not of “pickle in brine” since it did not show any covering liquid and it showed presence of oil. Therefore, the Central Food Laboratory considered the sample as “pickle in oil base”. But, if the analytical data available in Ext.C1 are taken into consideration, it satisfies the standards prescribed in Item A.16.16.(i) of Appendix B since the percentage of the sodium CRRP.1914/2004 -: 3 :- chloride was 11.98%, i.e., above 10% and no prohibited substance was found. With that situation in hand, Ext.P12 report of the Public Analyst on the strength of which, the complaint was filed no more survives. 3.In the aforesaid situation, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the Central Food Laboratory was not within its authority under the Act or Rules to treat the sample as a material which is different from that which it purported to be at the stage of seizure and sampling and still further, that the commencement of the prosecution by the institution of the complaint was not on the basis of any allegation referable to the contents of Ext.C1 that the sample was “pickle in oil”. Here, two matters require to be noted. The article of food in question was not offered for sale as pickle in oil but only as garlic pickle in brine. The transaction between the Food Inspector and the vendor leading to the sampling was also on CRRP.1914/2004 -: 4 :- the commercial exposure of the article by the vendor as garlic pickle in brine as is discernible from Ext.P7 mahazar. That apart, to treat an article as pickle in oil for the purpose of Item A.16.16.(ii), the pickle shall be covered with oil so as to form a layer of not less than 0.5 cm above the contents or the percentage of oil in pickle shall be not less than 10%. Ext.C1 does not state that the sample had oil so as to form a layer of not less than 0.5 cm over the contents or that the percentage of oil in the pickle is not less than 10%. In fact, the analysis shows that the oil content is only 1.70%. The mere presence of oil in pickle in brine is insufficient to treat it as a sample of pickle in oil base. Presence of oil in pickle in brine is not prohibited, going by the manner in which the Item at A.16.16.(i) in Appendix B stood worded at the relevant time, namely, 17-6-1997, the date of seizure of sampling. 4.For the aforesaid reasons, notwithstanding any CRRP.1914/2004 -: 5 :- authority being available with the Central Food Laboratory to identify the sample, going by its real nature, the contents of Ext.P12 are insufficient to enter a conviction by treating the sample even as a pickle in oil. The allegation that it is an adulterated article, if it is a pickle in brine, as is contended in the complaint, also stands disproved. Hence, the impugned conviction and sentence cannot stand. In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence. The accused is acquitted. The bail bonds will stand cancelled accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/