Madras High Court
G.Mani Pandian vs Kasinathan on 23 September, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 23.09.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2017
1.G.Mani Pandian
2.V.Panchacharam .. Petitioners
/versus/
Kasinathan
Southern Railway,
Chief Health and Food Inspector,
Egmore Railway Station,
Chennai 600 008. .. Respondent
Prayer:- Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 (1)
r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. 1974 to call for the records in the above Criminal Appeal
No.194 of 2016 on the file XIX Additional Sessions Court, City Civil Court
at Chennai and set aside the dismissal order of the same dated 17.04.2017
and confirming the orderof the trial Court passed in the above SMMF No.1
of 2010 on the file of the XX Metropolitan Magistrate at Ripon Building,
Chennai-3.
Page No.1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2017
For Petitioners :Mr.C.Rajalakshmi
(legal Aid Counsel)
For Respondent :Mr.P.T.Ramkumar,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused persons, who
have been found guilty of offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(ii)(v) r/w
Section 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and
sentenced them to undergo 3 months SI and fine of Rs.1000/- each of the
charges.
2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that the
respondent/defacto complainant is the Chief Health and Food Inspector
attached to Southern Railway. On a surprise inspection of the accused Soda
Water Stall at Nungambakkam Railway Station, on 20.04.2010 at 12.30
p.m., he found that cool drinks are not properly preserved or maintained and
suspecting that it must contain adulteration materials. 12 Samples were
Page No.2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2017
drawn from the shop and sent to the Lab. The Lab Report indicates that
permitted synthetic food colour was not exhibited on the cover containing
permitted synthetic food colour. Hence, for mis-declare description and
misbranded, the prosecution was launched under Sections 32(a)(i), 32(1)(iv)
32(c)(i) & 32(e) Rule 24 and 64 BB. The four persons were arrayed as
accused. A1-Mani Pandian (Vendor), A2-Panchacharam (Manager), A3-
John Jai Prakash (Proprietor) and A4-Anbarasan (Manufacturer of the
misbranded cool drinks).
3. The trial Court, on appreciating the evidence let in by the
prosecution namely evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, Exs.P1 toP13 and the
Court Exs.C1 and C2 held all the four accused guilty and sentenced as
stated above. Aggrieved by that, an appeal in Crl.A.No.194 of 2016 was
filed before the Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and the lower Appellate
Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence
passed by the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Rippon Building, Chennai.
Page No.3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2017
4. Aggrieved by the said finding, the Revision Case is filed by A1
and A2. Pending Revision, A2 died and the same has been reported along
with Death Certificate indicating A2 [Panchacharam] died on 11.06.2018.
Since there was no representation for the first accused, this Court requested
the Legal Services Authority to appoint a competent counsel to defence the
accused/1st petitioner. Accordingly, Mrs.C.Rajalakshmi, appointed as Legal
Aid Counsel and represented for the first petitioner.
5. Taking note of the evidence and documents relied on by the
prosecution, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners
submitted that the first petitioner is only vendor of the Proprietor and the
Proprietor/2nd accused is no more. The manner in which the samples were
drawn and sent for analysis is not in connection with the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954. Further more, the Lab report indicated that it does
not contain permitted synthetic food colour and not any adulterated
substance materials. While so, for not exhibiting the said fact on the cover,
Page No.4/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2017
it will not fasten any criminal intention for culpable mental state on the
petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for acquittal.
6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that as far as the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is
concerned, it is a strict liability on the person, who sell food articles to the
public, to ensure the safety and security of the public. The Act contemplates
that the content of the food must be properly declared on the packet. The
contaminated adulteration cool drinks are so not safety and caused endemic
diseases. More so, such contaminated materials are stored very much in the
Railway Station. He was found selling misbranded cool drinks to the
public. 12 packets were collected for samples and sent it for lab as per the
procedure laid under the Rules. The Report clearly indicates that synthetic
food colour to look like sunset yellow is mixed to make the cool drinks
attractive. The packets did not contain lot number and code number. The
samples were not the real fruit juice but artificial drink added with synthetic
colour. Therefore, the proprietor, manufacture, vendor and owner are all
Page No.5/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2017
liable for prosecution.
7. This Court, after considering the rival submissions and the
materials placed finds that the samples drawn from the shop, where the
petitioners herein was working as a Salesman, found to be artificial fruit
drinks mixed with synthetic food colour. However, the Lab Report
indicates that those synthetic fruit colour namely sunset yellow is a
permitted colour. The violation is not disclosing the said fact and properly
branded the product as artificial fruit drinks, which has every possibility of
misleading the customers that it is the real fruit drinks.
8. The penal provision under this Act as stated in Section 16
indicates that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be
mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two
years, and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees.
Page No.6/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2017
9. The trial Court has imposed sentence for three months and fine
of Rs.1000/- for each of the offences under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and three
months and fine of Rs.1000/- for each of the offences under Section 7(ii)(v)
r/w 2(ix)(k) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. No specific
reason assigned by the Courts below for imposing the minimum sentence of
three months, though it may not be an impediment or bar for the Court to
impose sentence up to two years as per Section 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954.
10. As far as this case is concerned, the proven charges is
misbranding of fruit drinks sold in the Railway platform manufactured by
the 4th accused. This petitioner/1st accused is the vendor. Hence, the above
said sentence is modified to the effect that the fine of Rs.500/- each for four
charges totally, a sum of Rs.2000/- in default, to one week SI for each of the
charges. Fine amount, shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from today.
Page No.7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2017
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
23.09.2022
Index:yes/no
speaking order/non speaking order
ari
To
1.XIX Additional Sessions Court, City Civil Court at Chennai.
2.The XX Metropolitan Magistrate at Ripon Building, Chennai-3.
3.The Southern Railway, Chief Health and Food Inspector,
Egmore Railway Station, Chennai 600 008.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2017
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari
Crl.R.C.No.763 of 2017
23.09.2022
Page No.9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
