This is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in S.T.Case No.9/2001 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.
2. When the petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before me that it is a complaint filed by the Food Inspector, Corporation of Cochin against the petitioners herein alleging that the article taken as a sample from the premises of the first petitioner is allegedly adulterated. It is the submission that it is a fact that there is no laboratory established under Section 23 (1A)(ee) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is submitted before me that as per the dictum laid down in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector [2010 (4) KLT 706 (SC)] as well as the decision of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1814/2002 and connected cases, it is held that Crl.M.C.No.7964/2015 2 an analysis report from a laboratory established under Section 23(1A) (ee) alone can be the basis of prosecution and on the basis of any other analysis report, cognizance cannot be taken.
3. I heard the learned standing counsel for the first respondent who submitted before me that as per the dictum laid down by the apex court, prosecution will not lie.
3. I perused the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam as well as the copy of the report of the public analyst on which cognizance was taken by the court. It can be seen that there is analysis and the case is that the sample does not conform to the standards prescribed for "Rolled Oats" under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 The Form III report is produced as Annexure II before this Court.
After going through the analysis report, it can be seen that the alcoholic acidity is seen as 11.4 ml of N.NaOH per 100 grams of dried substance. The permissible limit is 8 ml of N.NaOH per 100 grams of dried substance. It is apparent that the public analyst can come to such a conclusion only by analysis of the article in a laboratory. Under Crl.M.C.No.7964/2015 3 such circumstances, by applying the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Pepsico's case ( supra), no purpose will be served by continuation of this proceeding before the trial court. Hence, all the proceedings in respect of S.T.Case No.9/2001 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed.
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE sv.