KLW‎ > ‎Volume 30‎ > ‎

(2013) 303 KLW 424 - Rajaneesh Vs. State of Kerala [Food Adulteration]

Google+ Facebook Twitter Email PrintFriendly Addthis
The gadget spec URL could not be found
The gadget spec URL could not be found

Contents

  1. 1 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 
    1. 1.1 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this court to the judgment, Annexure 4. Learned Magistrate, after examining the documents produced before him and the evidence adduced at the time of trial, found that none of the accused was criminally liable for the alleged offences. Case against the petitioner and the 4th accused was specifically dealt with in paragraph 11 of the judgment. Petitioner submitted that case against 4th accused and himself stand on the same footing. They were implicated in the case as partners of the firm by name 'Season Traders'. No independent enquiry has been conducted by the Food Inspector to find out whether the petitioner along with 4th accused was a partner in the firm. No document was produced to fortify the contentions of the prosecution. For valid reasons the 4th accused, who stood trial with the same allegations as that against the petitioner, had been acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Appendix B.A.18.03 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 deals with Semolina (suji or rava). There is no contention for the prosecution that the article purchased by PW1 was suji or rava. The article was allegedly made of rice. Therefore, it is submitted by both sides that 'kanjirava' does not form part of the articles prescribed in the Act and the Rules. Considering the entire materials I find that no purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution.
    2. 1.2 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the acquittal has become final. This submission is not challenged by the learned Public Prosecutor. Therefore, I find that the petitioner is entitled to get the relief prayed for. 
The gadget spec URL could not be found

(2013) 303 KLW 424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

Crl.M.C.No.4248 of 2008

Dated this the 8th day of April, 2013

S.T. NO.3316 OF 2007, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VADAKARA 

PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED

RAJANEESH

BY ADVS.SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR SMT.NIKHILA SOMAN 

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA THROUGH THE FOOD INSPECTOR, VATAKARA CIRCLE. 

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI REJI JOSEPH

O R D E R 

Petition under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C). Petitioner was the 3rd accused in S.T.No.516/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara. Since he abstained from court, the case against him was split up and refiled as S.T.No.3316/2007. Offences alleged against him along with other accused are under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) r/w Section 7(1) and Section 2(ia)(a) and Rule 50(1) Appendix B.A.18.03 of 

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 

(in short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. Gist of allegations in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector is the following :- 

When the Food Inspector visited 'M/s. Santhi Traders', owned by first respondent on 19-09-2003 at 11 A.M and purchased three packets of "Kanjirava" each weighing 500 gms, came to know that the said item was an adulterated and fell short of the standards set in Appendix B.A.18.03 of the Rules. Therefore, after complying with the formalities, the prosecution was launched against the petitioner and other accused. According to the petitioner, the prosecution was totally misconceived. Other accused have been acquitted after trial, finding that the substratum of the prosecution case was shaky and baseless. Hence, petitioner requested that Annexure 3 complaint against him, which is pending as S.T.No.3316/2007 be quashed by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Annexure 1 is the mahazar. Food Inspector has been examined as PW1 before the court below. She took samples of packets containing label 'kanjirava' after complying with the formalities under the Act and the Rules. Annexure 2 is the report of the public analyst. On the basis of Annexure 2, Annexure 3 complaint was lodged. It is seen from the averments in the complaint that proper packing and sealing of the article was done as prescribed. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with 4th accused were responsible for the business of the firm by name 'Season Traders', who allegedly manufactured the food article.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this court to the judgment, Annexure 4. Learned Magistrate, after examining the documents produced before him and the evidence adduced at the time of trial, found that none of the accused was criminally liable for the alleged offences. Case against the petitioner and the 4th accused was specifically dealt with in paragraph 11 of the judgment. Petitioner submitted that case against 4th accused and himself stand on the same footing. They were implicated in the case as partners of the firm by name 'Season Traders'. No independent enquiry has been conducted by the Food Inspector to find out whether the petitioner along with 4th accused was a partner in the firm. No document was produced to fortify the contentions of the prosecution. For valid reasons the 4th accused, who stood trial with the same allegations as that against the petitioner, had been acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Appendix B.A.18.03 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 deals with Semolina (suji or rava). There is no contention for the prosecution that the article purchased by PW1 was suji or rava. The article was allegedly made of rice. Therefore, it is submitted by both sides that 'kanjirava' does not form part of the articles prescribed in the Act and the Rules. Considering the entire materials I find that no purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the acquittal has become final. This submission is not challenged by the learned Public Prosecutor. Therefore, I find that the petitioner is entitled to get the relief prayed for. 

In the result, the petition is allowed. Complaint leading to registration of S.T.No.3316/2007 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara and all proceedings thereunder are hereby quashed. 

Sd/- 

A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. 

//True Copy// amk P.A to Judge