RASHEED Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of cases viz., Criminal Revision Petitions filed by the convicts who faced prosecution and Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed by the accused who are facing prosecution, for offences under different Sections of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, P.F.A. Act) read with different rules of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (for short, P.F.A. Rules), relating to food adulteration were placed before us on orders of reference. All the Crl.M.Cs. except Crl.M.C. No.2755/2013 were referred as per order dated 25.9.2014 and all the other cases including Crl.M.C.No.2755/2013 were subsequently referred based on the order of reference dated 25.9.2014. Apparently, the order of reference dated 25.9.2014 was made in the wake of cleavage of opinion and divergent findings made by three learned Single Judges regarding the ratio decidend in the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Pepsi Co. India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Food Inspector (2010 (4) KLT 706 (SC)) , in different cases. The questions referred to the Division Bench are as follows:

(2.) Before answering the reference, it has become inevitable for us to consider another question of importance which could decide the width of jurisdiction while deciding the captioned cases received on reference. The question is whether a learned Single Judge could refer only one or some of the questions that arise/arises for consideration to the Division Bench and retain the case for consideration in questions not referred, but involved in the referred case. In fact, that question is no more res integra in view of the decisions of a Division Bench of this Court in Kallara Sukumaran Vs. Union of India (1987 (1) KLT 226) and a larger Bench of this Court comprised of seven Honourable Judges in Babu Premarajan Vs. Supdt. of Police (2000 (3) KLT 177 (FB)) . As a matter of fact, those decisions were also considered by the learned Single Judge while passing the order of reference dated 25.9.2014.

(3.) While dealing with the power of a Single Judge under Sec. 3 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 (for short, the Act) in contradistinction to the powers of a Division Bench under Sec. 4 of the Act, in Kallara Sukumaran's case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held thus:-