IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 2668 of 2005()
1. P.V.PRASAD, SREE PRASADAM FOODS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FOOD INSPECTOR, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :20/03/2007
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C. NO. 2668 OF 2005
---------------------
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is being prosecuted under Section 16(1) a(i)
read with Section 7(ii) and Section 2(ix)K of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act 1954 [for shot “the Act”] and Rule 40(2) of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules [for short “the Rules”].
Petitioner has been arraigned as Accused No.2 in the above
proceedings.
2. The Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the
proceedings pending against him on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Thalasserry in STC 6264/04. The 1st
respondent filed Annexure I complaint before the court below
alleging that the sample of vinegar purchased from Accused No.1
was certified as mis branded under Section 2(ix)K of the Act. The
case of the Food Inspector appears to be that he had purchased
the food article in question from Accused No.1 on July 22, 2002
after issuing Form VI notice. Three bottles containing 500 ml.
CRL.M.C. NO. 2668/05 Page numbers
each of non fruit vinegar were purchased by the Food Inspector
and they were sealed and labelled as provided under the Act and
the Rules. One sample was sent for analysis pursuant to which
Annexure II report was issued by the Public Analyst. Food
Inspector contended that in view of the report issued by the
Analyst, petitioner and Accused No.1 were liable to be prosecuted
under the Act and the Rules thereunder.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had
obtained Annexure III licence for manufacture of Jam Group,
Squash Group, Pickles, Non fruit vinegar etc. from the Ministry of
Food Processing Industries under Government of India. The
licence was issued to him under the Fruit Products Order, 1955.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel that in the year 1997 the
Central Government had amended Clause 11(2) of the Fruit
Products Order by which the word “synthetic” was substituted by
“non fruit” in the said clause. The label on the bottle of vinegar
purchased by the Food Inspector contained the words “non fruit”
as indicated in Clause 11(2) of the food products order and
therefore petitioner cannot be held to have violated any statutory
provision. Learned counsel has invited my attention to a decision
CRL.M.C. NO. 2668/05 Page numbers
of this Court in Achamma v. Union of India [2004 (3) KLT 81]
in which an identical question was considered. This Court had
held that “in the light of the amendment of the Fruit Products
Order as a result of which the word “synthetic” is substituted by
the word ‘non-fruit”, marking of vinegar products by labelling
them as “non-fruit” instead of “synthetic” will not amount to mis
branding.”
In view of the above decision, I am satisfied that the
prosecution launched against the petitioner is liable to be
quashed. I do so. The Crl.M.C. is therefore allowed.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
vps
CRL.M.C. NO. 2668/05 Page numbers
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE
OP NO.
JUDGMENT
21st DECEMBER, 2006