R. Jayaram vs State of Kerala

A. Hariprasad, J.—Petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.").

Petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.29 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery. He along with other accused is arrayed in offences punishable under Sections 2(ia), 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short, "the PFA Act"). Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.10.2009 at 11.00 a.m. the Food Inspector inspected a hotel by name Sree Gokulam Fort, Thalassery. At the time of inspection, the 1st accused was conducting trade in food articles. The Food Inspector after complying with all the formalities under the Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short, "the PFA Rules") and after giving Form VI notice notice, purchased urd whole (black gram) from the stock kept in the hotel. After packing, sealing and sampling the food item, it was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Calicut. The Public Analyst''s report is produced as Annexure-AII. Having found that the food item was adulterated within the meaning of the relevant provision of the PFA Act and PFA Rules, the prosecution was launched.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that immediately on receipt of the notice, the petitioner moved a petition u/s 13(2A) of the PFA Act for sending the food item to be analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Pune. Annexure-AIV is the report by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Pune. It shows that the urd whole did not conform to the standards as per the PFA Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay on the part of the court in sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune. It is also submitted that the delay occurred at the hands of the court caused damage to the food item. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner/2nd accused had taken steps within the time stipulated under the PFA Act and PFA Rules for sending the food item to be analysed by Central Food Laboratory, Pune. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in D. Rama Moorthy Vs. Food Inspector, Perambra Circle and Another, . I am of the view that the said decision is distinguishable on facts. Considering the entire allegations against the petitioner, I am of the definite view that this is not a fit case to invoke jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner, being aggrieved of the fact that there was delay on the part of the court to send the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Pune, can take up appropriate contentions at the time of trial.

With this observation, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.