Karnataka High Court
M/S Tuticorin Salts And Marine ... vs P N Balasubramanya on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12634
CRL.RP No. 456 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 446 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 456 OF 2017
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 446 OF 2017
IN CRL.RP No. 456/2017
BETWEEN:
E. V. RAVIPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O VEERABHADREGOWDA,
M/S SREE VEERABHADRESHWARA GENERAL STORE,
TOWN PANCHAYATH COMPLEX BUILDING,
B.M.ROAD, ALUR, HASSAN - 573213.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUYOG HERALE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RENUKA P. N. BALASUBRAMANYA,
Location: FOOD INSPECTOR
HIGH COURT O/O LOCAL (HEALTH) AUTHORITY,
OF TALUK HEALTH OFFICER ALUR, HASSAN DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA,HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2014 IN C.C.NO.451/2008
PASSED BY LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALUR, HASSAN
DISTRICT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2017 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AT HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.186/2014. AND ETC
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12634
CRL.RP No. 456 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 446 of 2017
IN CRL.RP NO. 446/2017
BETWEEN:
M/S TUTICORIN SALTS AND MARINE CHEMICALS LTD
HARBOUR LINK,
ROAD, TUTICORIN-628001
REP BY B.R.MYLAR RAO,
S/O B. H. RAJASHEKARIAH,
6TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD,
VINOBHANAGAR, 2ND STAGE,
SHIMOGGA-577204.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUYOG HERALE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NISHANTH S. K ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
P. N. BALASUBRAMANYA
FOOD INSPECTOR
O/O LOCAL (HEALTH)
AUTHORITY,
TALUK HEALTH OFFICER,
ALUR, HASSAN DISTRICT,
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA,HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2014 IN
CC.NO.451/2008 PASSED BY LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
ALUR, HASSAN DISTRICT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
06.01.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN IN CRL.APPEAL
NO.186/2014. AND ETC.
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 17.02.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:12634
CRL.RP No. 456 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 446 of 2017
CAV ORDER
1. These two Criminal Revision Petitions are filed by the
respective petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgment
of conviction and order on sentence dated 03.12.2014 in
C.C.No.451/2008 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge
and JMFC and its confirmation judgment and order dated
06.01.2017 in Crl.A.No. 186/2014 on the file of the Court
of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, seeking
to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the
Courts below, wherein the petitioners / accused Nos. 1
and 2 are convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 7(1), 16(a)(i) of Section 16 of Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act (for short, 'PFA', Act), 1954 and
they have been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for one year and also sentenced to pay fine
of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of the same,
they have been further ordered to be undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth
as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:12634
CRL.RP No. 456 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 446 of 2017
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.06.2008, the
complainant/P.W.1 who was working as a Food Inspector
of the Alur Health Office, Alur Range, Hassan District had
visited the shop of accused No.1 viz., "M/s. Sree
Veerabhadreshwara General Store" and found that the
accused had stored adulterated Solar White Gold Iodized
Salt. He is stated to have purchased 500 gms of three
packets of said salt for the purpose of subjecting the said
salt for chemical analysis. Further, he noticed that the
said salt has been packed and manufactured by Tuticorin
Salt and Marine Chemicals Limited. P.W.1 while
purchasing the said salt has issued a notice in Form No.6
regarding intimation of sending the salt to the public
analyst for chemical analysis. Thereafter P.W.1 has
packed the said salt and sealed them in the presence of
accused No.1 and P.W.4. Thereafter, he prepared
mahazar as per Ex.P.7 and the sample to the Divisional
Analyst, Mysore in a sealed cover along with a copy of
Form No.7. On 02.08.2008, he received certificate from
Regional Office. The said certificate would indicate that
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:12634
CRL.RP No. 456 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 446 of 2017
the said salt was adulterated. Therefore, he registered a
case as per Sections 7(i), 16(a)(i) of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954. After filing the complaint,
the Magistrate took cognizance.
4. The prosecution examined five witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 5
and got marked twenty-seven documents i.e., Exs.P.1 to
27, and opined that the accused have committed the
offences as stated supra and recorded the conviction.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have
preferred the appeal before the first appellate Court,
however, the first appellate Court confirmed the
judgment rendered by the Trial Court and dismissed the
appeal filed by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are
before this Court seeking to set aside the concurrent
findings rendered by the Courts below.
5. Heard Sri.Suyog Herale, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri.Sachin B.S and Sri.Nishanth S.K learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent - State in both cases.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:12634
CRL.RP No. 456 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 446 of 2017
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the prosecution has relied on the
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, they are the official witnesses
and also the interested witnesses. When the evidence of
interested witnesses are to be analyzed, their evidence
has to be scrutinized properly. However, both the Courts
have not analyzed the evidence properly. Consequently,
the impugned judgments have been passed which are
required to be set aside.
7. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to
prove the mandatory requirement stipulated under
Section 13(2) of the Act and further, it has also violated
Section 10 (7) of the Act. In addition to that, the
prosecution has not examined any independent
witnesses. Despite several lacunae in the evidence of
prosecution, both the Courts have committed errors in
recording the conviction. Therefore, the said conviction
are liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, the
learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the
petition.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:12634
CRL.RP No. 456 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 446 of 2017
8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader
vehemently justified the concurrent findings and
submitted that the evidence of official witnesses cannot
be discarded on the ground that they are the interested
witnesses. Though the investigation team cited the
independent witnesses for the purpose of conducting the
search and seizure of the adulterated salt, they have not
supported the case.
9. It is further submitted that the conviction can also be
recorded even on the evidence of the official witnesses, if
the evidence of the official witnesses inspire the
confidence of the Court. It is not in dispute that the
accused was selling the adulterated salt in the shop and it
is not in dispute that the FSL report indicated that it is a
adulterated salt. It is also not disputed that the said salt
was being manufactured by the company, Tuticorin Salt
and Marine Chemicals Limited. Therefore, the findings of
the Courts below in recording the conviction is proper and
appropriate. Having said thus, the learned High Court
Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petitions.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:12634
CRL.RP No. 456 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 446 of 2017
10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and also perused the findings of the Courts below, it is
relevant to refer the provisions under Section 13(2) and
10(7) of the PFA, Act for the purpose of clarifying the
provisions and its compliance. Section 13(2) reads as
under:
"13. Report of Public analyst.--
(2) On receipt of the report of the
result of the analysis under sub-section (1)
to the effect that the article of food is
adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority
shall, after the institution of prosecution
against the person from whom the sample
of the article of food was taken and the
person , if any, whose name, address and
other particulars have been disclosed under
section 14A, forward, in such manner as
may be prescribed, a copy of the report of
the result of the analysis to such person or
persons, as the case may be, informing
such person or persons that if it is so
desired, either or both of them may make
an application to the court within a period
of ten days from the date of receipt of the
copy of the report to get the sample of the
article of food kept by the Local (Health)
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:12634
CRL.RP No. 456 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 446 of 2017
Authority analysed by the Central Food
Laboratory.
11. On reading of the aforesaid provisions, it makes it clear
that the copy of the certificate of the analysis should be
supplied to the accused for the reason that he should
aware of the contents of the said certificate. As per the
said provisions, it is mandatory in nature and that is to be
followed by the officer and conducted search and seizure
of the adulterated item. Similarly, it is relevant to refer
10(7) of the Act which reads as under:
"10. Powers of Food Inspectors.--
(7) Where the food inspector take any action
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) sub-
section (2), sub-section (4), or sub-section
(6), he shall 8 [call one or more persons to
be present at the time when such action is
taken and take his or their signatures]
.
12. As per the said provisions, when the Food Inspector
wants to check on the particular shop, he shall ensure
that one or more persons of the locality to be present at
that time conducting search and seizure.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12634
CRL.RP No. 456 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 446 of 2017
13. Having considered the aforesaid provisions, now, it is
relevant to refer the evidence of all the witnesses in brief
for the purpose of arriving at conclusion as to whether
any irregularities committed in appreciating the evidence
and also in compliance of the law.
14. P.W.1 was working as a Food inspector of the said
division. He is stated to have conducted raid on the shop
of accused No.1. According to him, he and C.W.3 who is
examined as P.W.4 had visited the shop of accused No.1
and stated to have purchased Solar White Gold Iodized
Salt. According to him, he complied the requirements by
giving Form No.6 to the accused. However, in the cross-
examination, he admitted that he did not invite the local
persons to be the witnesses for the said search and
seizure. When the Act itself stipulates that calling the
locals as witnesses to the search and seizure is
mandatory, non-compliance of said provisions would
amounts not only irregularity but it is illegality, that
cannot be cured. Moreover, the evidence of official
witnesses shrouded with doubt as they are the interested
witnesses to the case. In such circumstances, the Courts
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12634
CRL.RP No. 456 of 2017
C/W CRL.RP No. 446 of 2017
below ought not to have considered the evidence of the
interested witnesses.
15. It is also noted here that the Tuticorin Salt and Marine
Chemicals Limited is a limited company and the company
should have also been made as one of the accused. Non
arraying the company as one of the accused to the
proceedings is held to be illegal and the entire
proceedings ought to have been vitiated. However, both
the Courts failed to deal with the said aspects in a right
perspective and committed error in rendering the
conviction. Therefore, the conviction passed by the
Courts below is held to be illegal and the same is liable to
be set aside.
16. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 03.12.2014 passed in
C.C.No.451/2008 by the Court of the Civil
Judge and J.M.F.C., Alur and the judgment
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:12634
and order dated 06.01.2017 passed in
Crl.A.No.186/2014 by the Court of the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Hassan, are set aside.
iii) The petitioners are acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 7(1),
16(a)(i) of Section 16 of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act.
iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
JS
