[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abdul Zamad vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2026
Crl.R.P No.4519/2007 2026:KER:31087
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4519 OF 2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2007 IN CRL.A
NO.245/2003 OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(ADHOC) II, KALPETTA AND THE JUDGMENT IN CC 837/2001 DATED
03.10.2003 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,
S.BATHERY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
ABDUL ZAMAD
AGED 21/03, PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE,, MOODAKOLLY POST,
VAKERY, S.BATHERY,, WAYANAD.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL
SRI.RAFFEEKH.K
SMT. SUHARABI KANNETH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH Court OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SMT.ANIMA.M, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 25.03.2026, THE COURT ON 07.04.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P No.4519/2007 2026:KER:31087
2
ORDER
The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II, Sulthan Batheri and the Additional Sessions Court
(Adhoc)-II, Kalpetta convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the
commission of offence under Section 16(1A)(i) of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') are under challenge
in this revision petition.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the one
Kilogram of banana chips, which the Food Inspector, Mananthavady
purchased on 23.10.1997, from the shop where the petitioner was
working as Salesman, was found to have contained the synthetic
food colour 'tartrazine', upon analysis at the laboratory.
3. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner for the
commission of the aforesaid offence by relying on the prosecution
evidence which consisted of the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW4 and
the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P24. Though the petitioner
challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with
Crl.R.P No.4519/2007 2026:KER:31087
3
the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was
dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid concurrent verdicts of the Courts below, the petitioner is
here before this Court with this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner,
and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. The verdicts of the Courts below are assailed by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner upon two grounds. Firstly,
it is contended that 'Tartrazine' is a permitted synthetic food colour
as per Rule 28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
(for short 'the Rules'), and hence the criminal prosecution launched
against the petitioner, was bad in law. The decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Chander @ Mahesh Chandh
v. State of Haryana [SLP (Crl) No.4706/2019] is also relied on
by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the above
argument. It is true that Rule 28 of the Rules permits the use of
'Tartrazine' to give yellow colour to any food item specified in Rule
29. However, banana chips are not a food item coming under those
items enumerated under Rule 29. Therefore, the contention of the
Crl.R.P No.4519/2007 2026:KER:31087
4
petitioner in the above regard, is totally fallacious. In Mahesh
Chander (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the
issue regarding the synthetic food colour 'Tartrazine' added to 'dal
moong dhuli' which is a food item coming under Rule 29 of the
Rules. It is due to the aforesaid reason that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant in that
case. As far as the present case is concerned, the addition of
'Tartrazine' as a synthetic food colour to banana chips, is not
permitted under any of the provisions of the Rules and the Act.
Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner by the
Courts below, cannot be assailed upon the aforesaid ground.
6. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner is that the petitioner was only a Salesman of
the shop concerned and hence he is not liable to be penalised for
the adulterated food stored for sale in that shop by the owner of
that shop. It is further argued that the owner of that shop, who was
arraigned as the second accused, had been acquitted by the
Appellate Court. The argument of the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, in the above regard, is also devoid of merit.
Crl.R.P No.4519/2007 2026:KER:31087
5
Going by the provisions contained in Section 16(1A)(i) of the Act,
any person who sells adulterated food, is liable to be proceeded
against for the commission of the aforesaid offence. There is no
exemption for the Salesman who had sold the adulterated food to
the Food Inspector, at the time of inspection of the shop. The
second accused was acquitted by the Appellate Court for the reason
that the prosecution failed to show that he was the owner of that
shop. So also, that the second accused was not present in that shop,
at the time when the Food Inspector purchased the adulterated food
kept in that shop. The acquittal of the second accused by the
Appellate Court, is thus, of no avail for the petitioner herein to
contend that he cannot be prosecuted for the commission of Section
16(1A)(i) of the Act.
7. On going through the impugned judgments of the Courts
below, it is seen that the Courts below resorted to the conviction and
sentence upon the petitioner, after analysing the evidence on record
in the correct perspective. The reasonings adopted by the Courts
below in the impugned judgments, cannot be faulted. In the above
circumstances, there is absolutely no scope for any interference with
Crl.R.P No.4519/2007 2026:KER:31087
6
the findings of conviction and sentence made by the Courts below.
Needless to say, the revision petition is devoid of merit.
In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
