LAWS(KER)-2012-11-492

PRASANTH K.C. Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

Decided On November 22, 2012
Prasanth K.C. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 115 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Kannur. The second accused is the firm represented by the 1st accused. The first accused is also the nominee of that firm. Offence alleged is under S. 16(1) a (i) read with S. 2(ia)(m) and S. 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("P.F.A. Act" for short). The allegation is that A1 was conducting sale of food article. After serving Form VI notice, P.W. 1 purchased 600 ml. of pickle from out of a vessel containing 15 litres. It was stated to have been stirred and homogenized. The procedural formalities were complied with in regard to the purchase, packing, sampling, labeling etc., as provided under the provisions of the P.F.A. Act and Rules. As per Form III report issued by the Public Analyst it was certified that the sample of pickle did not conform to the standard prescribed for pickle as per Item No. A.16.16 of Appendix B of P.F.A. Rules, 1955 and thus adulterated.

(2.) The petitioners allege that the prosecution initiated against them was mainly on the ground that the pickle sold to P.W. 1 was 'pickle in oil' but in fact only 'pickle' was sold by the accused and as such it cannot be said that the sample sold did not conform to the standard prescribed in A. 16.16 of Appendix B. It is further submitted that there was amendment to the Rule as per which the standard prescribed is shown in A. 16.42. There was great variance in respect of different items of pickle. A new item, as Item No. IV-"pickle without medium" was also introduced whereas as per the old Rule there was no separate item as "pickle without medium". The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since in the receipt or complaint or even in evidence it was not specifically stated that the pickle purchased by P.W.1 and which was sold by A1 to P.W. 1 was pickle in oil, the standard prescribed for "pickle in oil" cannot be taken as the basis to contend that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for 'pickles in oil'.

(3.) As it originally stood (based on which Form III Report was prepared by the Public Analyst), the standard prescribed as per Appendix A. 16.16 is as follows:-