STATE OF KERALA Vs. K SARANGADHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What are the bare relevant factors to be considered in a case where a food item is alleged to be 'misbranded' under Section 2 (ix) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act (PFA Act for short) This short question arises in this revision.

(2.) The State is the revision-petitioner. It challenges the order passed by the magistrate's Court under Section 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code, for short) discharging the respondents-accused of the offence under the PFA Act. A complaint was filed by Food Inspector against respondents alleging certain offences including "misbranding", under PFA Act and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (PFA rules). According to complainant-Food Inspector, he purchased 600 grams of "arrow root mixture" (200 grams x 3 jars) which were kept and exposed for sale in the medical shop run by first respondent. The article purchased was sampled in accordance with provisions of the Act and Rules and a mahazar was also prepared. The sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst and on analysis, it was reported to be "tapioca flour". Hence, the complaint was filed for misbranding a food item which is an offence under Section 2 (ix) of the Act. At the time of sampling, first accused disclosed the name of local distributor and manufacturer and hence they were also proceeded against as accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. It is further alleged in the complaint that first accused did not have licence under the PFA rules and he is guilty of violation of the PFA rules.

(3.) On appearance of the accused before trial Court, the accused raised a preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the accused, 'arrow root mixture' is not a food item but it is intended for sale only as a medicinal item. Hence, it is contended that Food Inspector has no authority to take sample from first respondent's shop and initiate prosecution steps against the accused. This argument was accepted by the trial Court and it was held that "arrow root" is only a component used for the manufacture of a medicinal item and necessary licence had been issued by drugs Controller to the accused. It was also held that the details on the label of the container themselves show that the article is intended for gastric disorder in children and hence, it is not an article of "food", as defined under Section 2 (v) of the Act, but it is only a medicinal item coming under Section 3 (b) coupled with Rule 154 (1) of Drugs and cosmetic Act ('drugs Act', for short) and rules.