IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 939 of 2004(B)
1. KHALID, S/O. IBRAHIM,
... Petitioner
2. ALI ARAKA, S/O. IBRAYI,
3. NOUSHAD, S/O. ABDUL KADAR,
4. R.ANAND,
5. M/S. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED,
6. S.SURESH JEYASINGH, S/O. K.SOLOMON,
7. M/S. SAHAYAMATHA SALTH REFINERY LTD.,
Vs
1. THE FOOD INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.A.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :14/11/2006
O R D E R
K.R. UDAYABHANU, J.
CRL.M.C.NO.939 OF 2004
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2006
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.49/2004 in the
court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mananthavady with
respect to the offence under Section 16(1-A)(i) read with Section
2(ia)(h), 7(1) and A-15-01 of Rule 5 Appendix B of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules. The accused
are the seller, the distributors and the manufacturer of Knorr
Annapurna iodized Salt. It is the case of the petitioner that the
analytical report is totally and absolutely erroneous. The
standard applied to detect the alleged adulterant is manifestly
incorrect. It is pointed out that the detection of the alleged
adulterant i.e. glass pieces is based on I.S.I.Handbook Part IV,
which is meant exclusively for determining the adulterants in
food grains. It is further contended that the sodium silicate
pieces which could be added as per Rule 62 of the Prevention of
food Adulteration Rules as anti caking agent was included in
the commodity and the same has been taken as glass pieces.
The manufacturer is entitled to include the anti caking agent.
CRMC.939/2004 -2-
It is further pointed out that it is possible that the sample was
tested on the basis that it is iodized salt simpliciter instead of
free flowing iodized salt. The sample was taken from the packet
that contained the label free flow salt that is mentioned in the
Public Analysit’s report, i.e.Annexure-D. Counsel has relied on
the Condensed Chemical Dictionary (Gessner G.Hawley) that
sodium silicate is the same is water glass which is simplest
form of glass. Hence it is submitted by the counsel that the
content analysed was free flow salt but the Analyst has
examined the sample as iodized salt and hence the mistake has
occurred. It is further pointed out that the percentage detected is
only .01 %. It is submitted that the Analyst has evidently
taken sodium silicate which was added as an anticaking agent
as pieces of glass which itself was of a minute percentage. The
counsel has also pointed out that as per the Condensed Chemical
Dictionary(Gessner G.Hawley)anticaking agent is described as an
additive used primarily in certain finely divided food products
that tend to be hygroscopic to prevent or inhibit agglomeration
and thus maintain a free-flowing condition. Such substances as
starch, calcium metasilicate, magnesium carbonate, silica, and
CRMC.939/2004 -3-
magnesium-stearate are used for this purpose in table salt,
flours, sugar, coffee, whiteners and similar products. Counsel
has produced copy of I.S.I.Handbook Part-IV of the same which
as per the Analyst’s report is the standard adopted. I find the
above does not contain any test for salt as such or the test for
detecting glass pieces. Part-IV is only with respect to food
grains and food grain products.
2. In the circumstances and in view of the above
contentions which I find cannot be assailed the test report of the
Public Analyst on the basis of which the prosecution has been
launched is evidently erroneous . An incorrect report of the Public
Analyst cannot be the basis for a prosecution in a serious offence
for which the statute prescribes mandatory imprisonment.
Hence, I find that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.49
of 2004 in the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,
Mananthavady is herewith quashed. The Crl.M.C.is allowed.
ks. K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
CRMC.939/2004 -4-
ks.