PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT LTD Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. - a beverages manufacturer and its Directors, face prosecutions before various courts in the State of Kerala. They have come to this Court with these Crl. M.Cs. with a prayer that the prosecutions launched against them may be quashed on various grounds raised by them invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr P.C.

(2.) To the skeletal facts first. Samples of carbonated beverages allegedly manufactured by M/s. Pespsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., were purchased by the Food Inspectors at various centres in the State. They were sent to the Public Analysts. The Public Analysts analysed the samples in these cases and reported that the samples of carbonated beverages analysed by them were adulterated. They have furnished their opinion in the prescribed form. Thereupon, prosecutions were lunched. It is important to straightaway note that the option under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act) was not invoked by the indictees in all these cases. They have come up in challenge against the cognizance taken against them on various grounds.

(3.) At the outset it must be mentioned that the learned Public Prosecutor was requested to specify why and how it is said that the article is adulterated. The learned Public Prosecutor was also requested to specify the precise allegation as to how the samples of carbonated beverages can be said to be adulterated. The learned Public Prosecutor, after elaborate discussions at the Bar and after taking specific instructions, has stated categorically that the prosecution stands by the allegation in all these cases that the samples of carbonated beverages purchased were adulterated under Section 2(ia) (h) of the Act. The crux of the allegations now is only that the samples in question were found to contain pesticide residue-carbofuran carboryl etc., which render the articles injurious to health and consequently they are adulterated under Section 2(ia)(h) of the Act. At the very outset I would like to note that there were certain other allegations raised when the hearing started; but, in the course of discussions, it is now stated unambiguously that the State wants to prosecute the indicates herein on the sole allegation that the samples of carbonated beverages purchased by the Food Inspectors are adulterated under Section 2(ia)(h) of the Act. I say so because initially it appears that there was confusion as to whether the articles can be said to be adulterated under Section 2(ia)(1) or Section 2(ia)(m) of the Act or whether the prosecution is for violation of Rule 65 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). In the light of the specific stand taken by the learned public Prosecutor it is not necessary for me to advert to those aspects in detail at all. The allegation now, I note, is only that the articles are adulterated under Section 2(ia)(h) of the Act.