High Court Kerala High Court

K.M.Kuriakose vs Food Inspector on 23 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.M.Kuriakose vs Food Inspector on 23 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1329 of 2002()


1. K.M.KURIAKOSE, KANJIRAPPALLIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. FOOD INSPECTOR, MEENADAM PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :23/06/2009

 O R D E R
                         THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                           CRL. R.P. NO.1329 of 2002
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   Dated this the 23rd day of June,    2009

                                  O R D E R

————–

This revision is in challenge of conviction and sentence of

petitioner for offence under Section 7(i) & (iii) of the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act (for short, “the Act”) and Rule 50 of the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short, “the Rules”) for

alleged sale of food article without obtaining licence required under

the Act and Rules.

2. Case is that Food Inspector purchased chilly powder from

the petitioner on 17.6.1989 and the sample of chilly powder on

analysis by Public Analyst was found to be not in conformity with the

standard prescribed for chilly powder. Accused No.2 was impleaded as

manufacturer of chilly powder. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Kottayam found petitioner as well as accused No.2 guilty and

convicted them for various offences including sale of chilly powder

which did not conform to the prescribed standard. Petitioner preferred

appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam found that

conviction and sentence of petitioner for alleged sale of food article

cannot stand since petitioner is entitled to the protection under Sec.19

(2) of the Act. His conviction and sentence for that offence were set

CRL. R.P. No.1329 of 2002
-: 2 :-

aside. But his conviction for sale of food article without licence was

confirmed and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for

three months and payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-.

3. So far as conviction of petitioner for offence under Sec.7(iii)

of the Act is concerned there is the evidence of Food Inspector as

P.W.1 that petitioner could not produce any licence when it was asked

for at the time Food Inspector purchased the food article from

petitioner. Exhibits P13 and P14 show that petitioner was not having

any licence under the Act for the sale of food article. Hence there is

no reason to interfere with the conviction of petitioner under Sec.7(iii)

of the Act.

4. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is undergoing

treatment for cancer since the last few years and produced

documents to support that contention. Along with Crl.M.P. No.5698 of

2009 attested photocopies of the relevant records from the hospitals

concerned are produced. It is seen that petitioner is undergoing

treatment for cancer and that he had to undergo surgery on the neck.

Considering the situation in which petitioner is placed I am inclined to

show leniency to the petitioner in the matter of sentence. As per

proviso (ii) to Sec.16(1)(g) sentence provided is imprisonment for a

term which may extend up to three months and fine which may extend

up to Rs.500/-. Petitioner is not shown to be involved in any similar

CRL. R.P. No.1329 of 2002
-: 3 :-

offence on previous occasion. In the circumstances I am satisfied that

simple imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.500/- will be

sufficient in the ends of justice.

Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following

extent:

(i) Substantive sentence imposed on
petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment
till rising of the court.

(ii) Sentence of fine is modified as
Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) and in
default of payment to undergo simple
imprisonment for two weeks.

Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.7.2009 to receive

the sentence. Fine if any deposited above Rs.500/- (Rupees Five

hundred) shall be refunded to the petitioner.

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5698 of 2009 shall stand

allowed.

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.7336 of 2002 shall stand

dismissed.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

===================
  CRL. R.P. NO.1329 of 2002
===================


        O R D E R




 23RD       JUNE, 2009