High Court Kerala High Court

C.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 12 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
C.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 12 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 850 of 1998()



1. C.BALAKRISHNAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

 Dated :12/07/2007

 O R D E R
                       K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
                  ---------------------------------------------
                       Crl.R.P.No.850 of 1998
                  ---------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007


                                O R D E R

The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.223/89 in

the file of the JFCM, Chalakudy with respect to the offences

under Sections 2(ia) (1) 7(i) (v) read with Section 16(1) (a) (i) and

(ii) of the P.F.A. Act, 1954 and A.14 of Appendix B of the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. The prosecution

case is that the tea dust purchased by the Food Inspector from

the shop of the accused was found to be adulterated. On

analysis, the same was found to contain excess ash. The revision

petitioner/accused stands convicted to undergo simple

imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-

and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three

months.

2. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted the

testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P15. The accused himself got

examined as DW1 and has produced Ext.D1 bill.

3. The counsel for the revision petitioner has raised the

contention that the accused is entitled to the protection of

CRRP850/1998 Page numbers

Section 19(2) of the PFA Act by virtue of Ext. D1 bill produced by

DW1. The above contention was rejected by both the courts

below on the basis of as the evidence of PW1, Food Inspector,

that the tea dust was kept in an unsealed jar; and rightly so. In

the circumstances, I find no reasons to interfere in the findings

of the court below. The conviction is confirmed.

4. All the same, counsel for the revision petitioner has

pointed out that about 19 years have elapsed since the

commencement of the criminal proceedings. In the

circumstances and also taking into consideration the nature of

the adulteration, I find that the sentence is liable to be modified.

The sentence is modified to imprisonment till the rising of the

court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo

simple imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioner

shall appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Chalakudy on 24.8.2007 to receive sentence.

The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.

K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl