IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 768 of 2001()
1. K.V. BABU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FOOD INSPECTOR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :30/10/2009
O R D E R
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No.768 OF 2001
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.694/1994 of
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor and Crl.Appeal
No.49/1998 of Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur. He was
convicted under Sections 2(ia) (a) (m), 7(i) , 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) (e) of PFA
Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and
to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for two months each . The conviction and sentence of the revision
petitioner were confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge.
Now the first accused has come up in revision challenging his
conviction and sentence.
2. The case of the complainant/first respondent, who is the
Food Inspector, Mobile Vigilance Squad, Kakkanad as testified by him
as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this :
First respondent PW1 purchased curd made of mixed milk from
the ‘New Hotel Ambadi’ at 9 AM on 24/03/1994. The first accused is
Crl.R.P..No.768/01 Page numbers
the Manager and the second accused is the licencee of the said hotel.
The public Analyst has reported in Ext.P10 that the sample does not
conform to the standards prescribed for curd prepared from mixed milk
and therefore it is adulterated. On the basis of this report, first
respondent complainant has filed a complaint against the accused
persons.
3. The accused persons when appeared before the trial court ,
copies of documents relied on by the complainant were furnished to
them and the complainant was examined as PW1. After preliminary
arguments, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 2
(ia) (m), 7(i) , 16(1)(a)(i)(iii) of PFA Act to which they pleaded not
guilty. Thereafter PW1 was recalled and further examined and PW2
was examined. Exts.P1 to P13 were marked on the side of the
complainant. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the revision
petitioners denied having committed any offence. No defence evidence
was adduced. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the
accused persons guilty of the offences alleged against them, convicted
them thereunder and sentenced them as aforesaid which is confirmed
Crl.R.P..No.768/01 Page numbers
in appeal. Now the first accused has come up in revision challenging
his conviction and sentence.
4. The following points arise for consideration ;
1) Whether the conviction of the
revision petitioner by the trial court under
Sections 2(ia) (a)(m), 7(i) , 16(1)(a)(i)(ii)(e) of
PFA Act which is confirmed in appeal can be
sustained ?
2) Whether the sentence imposed is
excessive or unduly harsh ?
Point No.1
5. Counsel for the revision petitioner argued that in view of
the discrepancies in the report of the public analyst – Ext.P10 and
report of the Central Food Laboratory Ext.P13 the benefit of doubt
should be given to be accused persons. I find some force in the above
contention. The allegation against the accused persons is that the
revision petitioner sold adulterated curd. Appendix A -11.02.04 of the
PFA Rules states that curd shall have the same minimum percentage of
Crl.R.P..No.768/01 Page numbers
milk fat and milk solids (non fat) as the milk from which it is prepared.
Appendix A-11.01.11 mandates that the standard for the different
classes and designations of milk . Appendix A.11.02 prescribes the
minimum all India standard for mixed milk as 4.5% , milk fat and milk
solids (non fat) as 8.5%. In Ext.P10 it was found that the sample
contained milk fat of 6.1% and milk solids(non fat) of 7.7%. At the
same time, Central Food Laboratory in Ext.P13 found that the sample
contained 4.1% milk fat and 9.2% milk solids ( non fat). In a similar
matter, the Apex Court has held in Administrator of the city of
Nagpur v. Laxman and another ( 1995 SCC(cri) 354) that the total
solids as indicated is more than what is prescribed for mixed milk and
refused to interfere with the acquittal of the accused.
6. In the light of the principles laid down in the above
decision, in the present case total solids are 13.8% as per the report of
the public analyst and 13.3% as per the report of the central food
laboratory. The total solid fat prescribed under the PFA Act is only
13%. Therefore accepting the principles laid down in the above
decision, I am giving the benefit of doubt to the revision petitioners and
Crl.R.P..No.768/01 Page numbers
acquitting them of the offences levelled against them.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction
of the revision petitioner under Sections 2(ia) (m) (a), 7(i) , 16(1)(a)(i)
(ii)(e) of PFA Act is set aside. He is acquitted of the said charge. His
bail bonds are cancelled.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
sv.
Crl.R.P..No.768/01 Page numbers