ALI HASA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners who are the Proprietor and the Manager respectively of Bharat Bakery at Vadakara and who are respectively accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 309 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara, challenge the order dated 15.7.08 passed by the Magistrate allowing correction of the complaint.

(2.) The article of food involved in this case is banana chips. The Food Inspector had purchased the banana chips on 7.1.2006 from the bakery of which Al is the Proprietor and A2 is the Manager. One part of the sample when despatched to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated for the reason that it contained synthetic food colour namely Tartrazine (colour index 19140). But in the complaint filed on 25.5.2006 the colour was wrongly mentioned as sunset yellow FCF (colour index 15985). Two years after the accused entered appearance the Food Inspector filed C.M.P. No. 2440 of 2008 for correcting the private complaint to substitute "Tartrazine colour" for "sunset yellow". Even though the said petition was opposed by the accused, the learned Magistrate allowed the said application as per the impugned order dated 15.7.2008. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners placing strong reliance upon the decision reported in Joy v. Food Inspector, 2008 (4) KLT 90 , contented that it is not permissible for the Food Inspector to make an amendment of the complaint after the cognizance of the offence has been taken. A perusal of the cited decision shows that the article of food was Bengal Gram Flour and the averments in the private complaint there was to the effect that the accused therein had sold adulterated flour. The said averment in the complaint was sought to be amended so as to incorporate an averment that the accused therein had sold misbranded flour instead of adulterated flour. The said decision cited has no application to the present case wherein on account of an accidental mistake on the part of the Food Inspector, instead of mentioning Tartrazine which is the colour constituting the adulterant in the food sample as mentioned by the Public Analyst in his certificate of analysis the Food Inspector had mentioned "sunset yellow" as the adulterant. The request of the Food Inspector was not really an amendment of the complaint but a correction of the mistake in the complaint to substitute the word "sunset yellow" with Tartrazine colour which is already there in the report of the Public Analyst. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Magistrate. This revision is, accordingly, dismissed.