Suspension of license for driving without helmet-- lawyer notice to Transport Commissioner by Social Justice Watch.

ലൈസന്‍സ് സസ്‌പെന്‍ഡ് ചെയ്യല്‍; ഋഷിരാജ് സിങ്ങിന് വക്കീല്‍ നോട്ടീസ്‌

T- T T+

കൊച്ചി: ഹെല്‍മെറ്റ് ധരിക്കാതെ ഇരുചക്രവാഹനം ഒടിച്ചതിന് ലൈസന്‍സ് സസ്‌പെന്‍ഡ് ചെയ്യുന്നതിനെതിരെ ട്രാന്‍സ്‌പോര്‍ട്ട് കമ്മീഷണര്‍ ഋഷിരാജ് സിങ്ങിന് വക്കീല്‍ നോട്ടീസ്. ചട്ടം മറികടന്നാണ് ഈ കുറ്റത്തിന് ലൈസന്‍സ് സസ്‌പെന്‍ഡ് ചെയ്യുന്നതെന്നാണ് നോട്ടീസില്‍ പറയുന്നത്. സോഷ്യല്‍ ജസ്റ്റിസ് വാച്ച് എന്ന സംഘടനയ്ക്കു വേണ്ടി അഡ്വ. ഷെറി ജെ.തോമസാണ് നോട്ടീസ് അയച്ചിട്ടുള്ളത്.

ഹെല്‍മെറ്റ് ധരിക്കാതെ ഇരുചക്രവാഹനം ഓടിക്കുന്നതിന് മോട്ടോര്‍ വാഹനനിയമത്തിലെ 177-ാം വകുപ്പുപ്രകാരം 100 രൂപ പിഴയാണ് വ്യവസ്ഥ ചെയ്യുന്നത്. കുറ്റം ആവര്‍ത്തിച്ചാല്‍ 300 രൂപ പിഴയിടാം. എന്നിരിക്കേ ഹെല്‍മെറ്റില്ലാത്തതിന്റെ പേരില്‍ ലൈസന്‍സ് സസ്‌പെന്‍ഡ് ചെയ്തുകൊണ്ട് ഇതിനകം ഇറക്കിയ ഉത്തരവുകള്‍ രണ്ടാഴ്ചക്കകം പിന്‍വലിക്കണമെന്നാണ് നോട്ടീസില്‍ പറയുന്നത്.

Non possession of Aadhar card is not a bar to get benefits...Supreme Court ordered that, possession of an Aadhaar card shall not be a requirement for availing any governmental benefit or service.

The Supreme Court, as an interim measure today, directed that the possession of an Aadhaar card shall not be a requirement for availing any governmental benefit or service. The direction was issued by the Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by former Karnataka High Court Judge Justice KS Puttaswamy [Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors., WP (c) 494/2012] challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme.

The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising of Justices BS Chauhan and SA Bobde. The Court after hearing the parties also directed that no illegal migrants should be issued an Aadhaarcard.

The petitioner, Justice (Retd) Puttaswamy has sought the quashing of the Aadhaar scheme on the ground that it violates the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution in as much as it required the individuals obtaining an Aadhaar number to part with personal information, such as biometrics, iris scans and fingerprints. Justice Puttaswamy has also submitted that there are no safeguards or penalties and no legislative backing for obtaining personal information, and the proposed legislation introduced by the Government had been rejected by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance.

He has further contended that the Aadhaar scheme was linked to various governmental services and benefits like food security under the newly enacted Food Security Act, LPG subsidy, Employees’ Provident Fund, and other DBT benefits. Hence, he argues that an Aadhaar card is mandatory to avail these benefits, contrary to the government’s claim that it is a voluntary scheme. He has also alleged that unchecked allotment of Aadhaar numbers to all residents, including illegal migrants, was jeopardising national security and that scheme was introduced to gain political mileage.

Senior Counsel Anil Divan appeared for the petitioner and was assisted by Advocate Ankit Goel. Divan submitted that Aadhaar card has been made mandatory for registration of marriages in Jharkhand, for teaching and non-teaching staff to draw salaries in Maharashtra and for availing various government scholarships. He, therefore, sought for interim directions to safeguard the rights of the citizens. Appearing for the Central government, Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran and Additional Solicitor General L Nageswar Rao opposed any interim relief arguing that Aadhaarwas purely a voluntary scheme.

The Court, however, issued interim directions to the effect that Aadhaar card shall not be mandatory till the matter is decided and no Aadhaar should be issued to illegal migrants. It agreed to hear all the issues involved and posted the matter for final hearing for a non miscellaneous day. Since both Justice Chauhan and Justice Bobde are part of the Constitution Bench hearing a criminal writ petition, the case will be heard only after the conclusion of the Constitution Bench matter.  

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had also issued notice to the Central Government, Government of Delhi and the Unique Identification Authority of India in a petition filed by NGO Beghar Foundation seeking quashing of the Aadhaar scheme on similar grounds. 

Courtesy to barandbench.com.

Cancellation/ suspension of license on driving without helmet..other traffic offences.. Whether legal?

The Transport Commissioner of Kerala, (2013) has issued directions via news media to suspend the licenses of persons who are riding motor vehicles without using helmet. Off course, these kind of direction may create panic among people and the retributive theory of punishment may work out. But is this legal ? Is it possible in a highly literate State like Kerala?

The punishment for driving without helmet will come under the general category in section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the fine prescribed is only Rs 100. Can any Transport Commissioner or any officer act against the legislation ? The basic fact that these kind of directions may reduce accident death and it will cause more people to obey the law. But how far is this legal?
In strict sense, there cannot be a fine more than Rs 100 for booking a person under section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act for riding without a helmet. 
Likewise, in several junctions, the amount of fine such as Rs 1000.. etc are seen printed on boards for traffic violations. But imposing fine and fixing the quantum of fine whether it can be maximum or otherwise, it is the duty of the judiciary, and executive officers have no power to intervene in such matters. 
SUSPENSION OF DRIVING LICENSE - CANNOT BE ARBITRARY

Recent news show that, even on riding a motor cycle without helmet would invite suspension of the license. The section 20,21,22,23 of Motor Vehicles Act deals with the provisions of suspension, cancellation etc of the license. 
But those action can be done only on found guilty. If the person is not pleading guilty and contesting the matter, then also the question of aforesaid suspension by the detecting officer cannot be done. 
In one of the case in the year 1991 itself, Js Thulasidas of Kerala High Court held in Divakaran V. State of Kerala that, the cancellation/suspension of license cannot be done in capricious and arbitrary way. The interesting fact is that, the then lawyer who appeared in the said case Mr. P R Ramachandra Menon is a sitting judge in High Court of Kerala. 

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT - BRIEF IN MALAYALAM

വിവരാവകാശ നിയമം

വിവരാവകാശ നിയമം - 2005

പൊതു അധികാര സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളുടെ കൈവശമുള്ള വിവരങ്ങള്‍ എല്ലാ പൌരന്മാര്‍ക്കും ലഭ്യമാക്കുന്നതിനും പൊതു അധികാര കേന്ദ്രങ്ങളുടെ പ്രവര്‍ത്തനത്തില്‍ സുതാര്യതയും വിശ്വാസ്യതയും വര്‍ദ്ധിപ്പിക്കുന്നതിനും ജനങ്ങളോടുള്ള ഉത്തരവാദിത്വം നിലനിര്‍ത്തുന്നതിനും അഴിമതി നിര്‍മ്മാര്‍ജ്ജനം ചെയ്യുന്നതിനുമുള്ള വിവരാവകാശ നിയമം 2005 ഒക്ടോബര്‍ 12 മുതല്‍ പ്രാബല്യത്തില്‍ വന്നു. ഭരണഘടനാ പ്രകാരമോ ലോകസഭയുടെയോ നിയമസഭകളുടെയോ നിയമം വഴിയോ സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ വിജ്ഞാപനം വഴിയോ നിലവില്‍ വന്നതോ രൂപീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ടതോ ആയ എല്ലാ അധികാരികളും, സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളും സര്‍ക്കാരില്‍ നിന്നും ഏതെങ്കിലും തരത്തില്‍ സഹായധനം ലഭിക്കുന്ന സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ ഇതര സംഘടനകളും ഈ നിയമത്തിന്റെ പരിധിയില്‍ വരും. സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങള്‍, സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ സഹായധനം നല്‍കുന്ന സ്ഥാപനങ്ങള്‍ എന്നിവയുടെ അധീനതയിലുള്ള ഒരു ജോലിയോ, പ്രമാണമോ രേഖയോ പരിശോധിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള അവകാശം, രേഖയുടെയോ പ്രമാണത്തിന്റെയോ കുറിപ്പുകളോ സംക്ഷിപ്തമോ എടുക്കല്‍, സാക്ഷ്യപ്പെടുത്തിയ പകര്‍പ്പുകള്‍, ഏതു പദാര്‍ത്ഥത്തിന്റെയും സാക്ഷ്യപ്പെടുത്തിയ സാമ്പിളുകള്‍ എടുക്കല്‍, കമ്പ്യൂട്ടറിലോ അതുപോലുള്ള മറ്റു ഇലക്ട്രോണിക് സംവിധാനങ്ങളിലോ ശേഖരിച്ചുവെച്ചിട്ടുള്ള വിവരങ്ങള്‍, പ്രിന്റൌട്ടുകള്‍,  ഫ്ലോപ്പികള്‍, ഡിസ്കുകള്‍, ടേപ്പുകള്‍, വീഡിയോ കാസറ്റുകള്‍ മുതലായ രൂപത്തില്‍ പകര്‍പ്പായി ലഭിക്കാനും ഏതൊരു പൌരനും അവകാശമുണ്ടെന്ന് നിയമം വ്യവസ്ഥ ചെയ്യുന്നു.

എല്ലാ സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ ഓഫീസുകളിലും പബ്ലിക് ഇന്‍ഫര്‍മേഷന്‍ ഓഫീസര്‍മാരെയും അസിസ്റ്റന്റ് പബ്ലിക് ഇന്‍ഫര്‍മേഷന്‍ ഓഫീസര്‍മാരെയും നിയോഗിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. ഏതെങ്കിലും ഒരു കാര്യത്തെക്കുറിച്ച് വിവരം ലഭിക്കേണ്ടവര്‍ 10 രൂപ ഫീസ് സഹിതം ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട പബ്ലിക് ഇന്‍ഫര്‍മേഷന്‍ ഓഫീസര്‍ക്ക് അപേക്ഷ നല്‍കണം. രേഖാമൂലമോ ഇലക്ട്രോണിക് മാധ്യമം വഴിയോ അപേക്ഷ നല്‍കാം. അപേക്ഷ എഴുതി നല്കാന്‍ കഴിയാത്ത വ്യക്തി പറയുന്ന കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ രേഖപ്പെടുത്തി അപേക്ഷ തയ്യാറാക്കുന്നതിന് പബ്ലിക് ഇന്‍ഫര്‍മേഷന്‍ ഓഫീസര്‍ സഹായിക്കണം. അപേക്ഷകന്‍ വിവരം തേടുന്നത് എന്തിനാണെന്ന് വെളിപ്പെടുത്തേണ്ടതില്ല. ബന്ധപ്പെടുന്നതിനുള്ള വിലാസം മാത്രമേ അപേക്ഷയില്‍ കാണിക്കേണ്ടതുള്ളു. വിവരങ്ങളും രേഖകളും ലഭിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള ഫീസുകള്‍ സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ നിശ്ചയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. ദാരിദ്ര്യരേഖയ്ക്ക് താഴെയുള്ളവരെ അവ തെളിയിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള രേഖകള്‍ ഹാജരാക്കുന്ന പക്ഷം നിര്‍ദ്ദിഷ്ട ഫീസ് ഈടാക്കുന്നതില്‍ നിന്നും ഒഴിവാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്.

അപേക്ഷ ലഭിച്ച് 30 ദിവസത്തിനകം പബ്ലിക് ഇന്‍ഫര്‍മേഷന്‍ ഓഫീസര്‍ അപേക്ഷകന് വിവരം നല്‍കണം. അസിസ്റ്റന്റ് പബ്ലിക് ഇന്‍ഫര്‍മേഷന്‍ ഓഫീസര്‍ വഴി ലഭിച്ച അപേക്ഷയാണെങ്കില്‍ 35 ദിവസത്തിനകം വിവരം നല്‍കിയാല്‍ മതി. എന്നാല്‍ വ്യക്തിയുടെ ജീവനെയോ സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യത്തെയോ ബാധിക്കുന്ന വിവരമാണ് ആവശ്യപ്പെടുന്നതെങ്കില്‍ അത് 48 മണിക്കൂറിനകം നല്‍കിയിരിക്കണം. ആവശ്യപ്പെടുന്ന വിവരം ലഭിക്കുന്നില്ലെങ്കിലോ അപൂര്‍ണ്ണവും അവാസ്തവവുമായ വിവരമാണ് കിട്ടിയതെങ്കിലോ അക്കാര്യത്തില്‍ പരാതിയുള്ള വ്യക്തിക്ക് അപ്പീല്‍ സംവിധാനവും നിയമത്തില്‍ വിഭാവനം ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്. നിയമം അനുശാസിക്കും വിധം വിവരം നല്‍കുന്നില്ലെങ്കില്‍ ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥനെതിരെ ശിക്ഷണ നടപടികളും നിയമം വ്യവസ്ഥ ചെയ്യുന്നു. സംസ്ഥാന ഇന്‍ഫര്‍മേഷന്‍ കമ്മീഷനാണ് വിവരാവകാശ നിയമം നടപ്പിലാക്കുന്നതും അവയിലെ പരാതികള്‍ തീര്‍പ്പാക്കുന്നതും ശിക്ഷാ നടപടികള്‍ സ്വീകരിക്കുന്നതുമായ അധികാരസ്ഥാനം.

എല്ലാ തദ്ദേശ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിലും പൊതു ജനങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് വിവരങ്ങള്‍ ലഭ്യമാക്കുന്നതിന് ഒരു ഇന്‍ഫര്‍മേഷന്‍ ഓഫീസറേയും ഒരു അപ്പലേറ്റ് അതോറിറ്റിയേയും നിശ്ചയിക്കാറുണ്ട്.സാധാരണ ഗതിയില്‍

പബ്ളിക് ഇന്‍ഫര്‍മേഷന്‍ ഓഫീസര്‍- മുനിസിപ്പല്‍ സെക്രട്ടറിയുടെ പി.എ ആയിരിക്കും

അപ്പലേറ്റ് അതോററ്റി മുനിസിപ്പല്‍ സെക്രട്ടറിയും ആയിരിക്കും

സംസ്ഥാന ഇന്‍ഫര്‍മേഷന്‍ കമ്മീഷന്‍
വെബ് സൈറ്റ് -http://keralasic.gov.in/

സംസ്ഥാന ഇന്‍ഫര്‍മേഷന്‍ കമ്മീഷന്‍

FOOD SECURITY ACT - important features- POWER POINT PRESENTATION in Malayalam

Food Security Act - important features - Power Point Presentation in Malayalam.

Motor accident cases - what to do after accident- criminal case and claim case - Motor Vehicles Act.

Motor Accidents are common on the roads. Pursuant to the accident, altercation between the parties are also common in some minor accidents. Cursing each other and alleging fault upon the other side, people gathering and watching them around and finally police will come and direct both the vehicles to be taken to the Police Station...these are routine in busy routes in Kerala.

What are the cases follow?

If a motor accident is occurred and any of the party suffered injury, then offences under section 279, 337/338 of Indian Penal Code are usually charged. If the driver is not a person who is the profession of a driver or a Government Driver, people are ready to plead guilty of the above said offences and for the time being, the Magistrate courts in which these cases are tried will allow the accused to plead guilty by paying fine amount only. This can be done even in the absence of the accused through pleader. 

If any one dies in the Motor Accident, then the offence under section 304A of IPC will be charged and accused cannot go with fine alone, on pleading guilty in the said offence.

What the injured to do?

Rather than picking quarrel on the cause of the accident, it is better for the injured to get admitted in the hospital at the earliest. At the time of first instance itself, the cause of injury must be revealed to the duty doctor. Also mention the number of the vehicle which hit the injured.

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

On releasing from the hospital, the injured can claim compensation from the accused/driver and owner of the vehicle. They will be indemnified by the Insurance Company and the insurance company will pay compensation for the owner to the injured. For this purpose, all the bills, salary certificate, loss of income etc need to be brought in evidence. There is no limitation period for filing claim. The claim can be filed at the place of accident or where the claimant resides. 

Right to be represented by a lawyer- proceedings under the provision of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act

The Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act denies the right to be represented by a lawyer as far as the parties are concerned. This question was mooted before the High Court of Kerala and now it is settled position that, in view of the provisions of section 30 of the Advocates Act, the provisions in various statutes which deprives the right of legal representation for the parties had been watered down. In the result, the section 17 of the Senior Citizens Act (in short) cannot be a ground to deny the right to be represented by a lawyer in the proceedings.
However, this aspect is still not known to many of the presiding officers/RDOs exercising jurisdiction on the basis of this Act.
The Decision rendered by High Court of Kerala declared this right categorically. ..

A Latha Sumam V. District Collector  2013 2 KLT 233

"The issue involved in this case is with regard to the right of the petitioner to be represented through a lawyer before the Maintenance Tribunal & Revenue Divisional Officer in a proceeding filed under the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.....
.......... Reliance is sought to be placed on the law declared by the Apex Court reported in 2011
(3) KLT SN 150 ( case number 151) Venkatachalam v.Ajith Kumar C. Shah holding that, it is open for the persons like the petitioner to appoint an 'authorised agent' who can appear on behalf of the party....
.....The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that, the idea and understanding of the second respondent with regard to the rights and liberties of the petitioner, to be represented through a lawyer, is not at all correct. More so, in view of the notification issued by the Central Government bringing Section 30 of the Advocates Act 1961 in to force with effect from 15/6/2011......
.........It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, there was an occasion for this Court to have considered similar issue, with reference to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, in respect of the proceedings before the Family Court, in the decision reported in 2011 (3) KLT 936 Saji v.Union of
India. With regard to the decision sought to be relied on from the part of the second respondent, it is seen that it was with reference to the rights and liberties of the party to be represented before the forum under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, 'through an authorised agent'. It however does not relate to the right of a lawyer to enter appearance on behalf of a litigant by virtue of the mandate under Section 30 of the Advocates Act 1961.
...............7. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, there is no dispute as to the fact that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which was lying dormant right from the date of incorporation, till the parliament decided to give effect to the said provision with effect from 15/6/2011. By virtue of the said provision, the provisions contained in various statutes, restricting the right of a Lawyer, placing an
embargo with regard to the right to appear before the concerned forum Court/Tribunal has rather become watered down. The position has been discussed by this Court in detail as per the decision cited supra ie., 2011 (3) KLT 936 Saji v.Union of India........

Twenty per cent seats for senior citizens in stage carriers in Kerala--Government Order

twenty per cent reservation of seats for senior citizens in stage carriers - Kerala Government Order

Twenty per cent seats in Stage Carriers in Kerala shall be marked for senior citizens. In accordance with the implementation of senior citizens act, the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules are amended in this regard.
The Gov Order is available in above link.

Destitution Certificate - REGULATION FOR THE WORKING OF THE BOARD OF CONTROLCONSTITUTED UNDER THE ORPHANAGES AND OTHER CHARITABLE HOMES (SUPERVISION AND CONTROL) AMENDMENT ACT 2013

REGULATION FOR THE WORKING OF THE BOARD OF CONTROLCONSTITUTED UNDER THE ORPHANAGES AND OTHER CHARITABLE HOMES (SUPERVISION AND CONTROL) AMENDMENT ACT 2013

The Social Justice (C) Department of Government of Kerala published notification [G. O (P) No.52/2013/SJD Dated 22/6/2013 as S.R.O. No. 527/2013 in K.G. Ext No.1867 dt 28/06/2013] for regulating the working of board of control constituted under the Orphanages and Other Charitable Homes Act 1960.

It is amended in the Regulation 9, that, the following terms are included. – All admissions to a recognized home shall be based on a Destitution Certificate for an orphan in form No.I or a Destitution Certificate for a non-orphan in form II from the village officer of the village in which the person permanently resides.

This is the last amendment as on September 2013 in this law. The number of destitute are increasing, especially those who are in the old age. Most often they are abandoned in their own houses, when the children are roaming away for better pastures of life and profession. But this legislation is intended to regulate the orphanages and other charitable homes and to have a general standard for the betterment of the inmates. The moot point is what is the role of Government in this area? Regulations are always welcome and they are necessary. But Government need to pump more funds in this area and Government run homes are to be established more in number.

Now the situation is grim, and there exist a large number of charitable homes assuring care to the destitute and old age people. Obviously many of them are not registered but they are providing better amenities to their inmates. But want of registration does not make them a legally equipped home. Running a home without recognition is a cognizable offence, the same need to be tried in magistrate court.

Therefore, all the amendments and new regulations are significant and the managements of the respective homes are duty bound to comply with the same. 

Petition to fix street lights on High Way - filed by Social Justice Watch Maradu Unit will be heard again on 4-10-2013.

Thetition filed (OP 111/2013) by SJW before the Permanent Lok Adalat against the street light issue in NH 47 bye pass and implementation of zebra cross in Kannadikkad Jn will be considered again on 4-10-13.

The Chairman D Papachan ordered the NH authorities who appeared before him, to file their statement before the next posting date. The Maradu Muncipality is also directed to file their statement within that day.
The case was filed by Maradu Unit of SJW.

A bold move from south... A discussion on method of analysis in food adulteration cases.

A bold move from south... 

A discussion on method of analysis in food adulteration cases.

When it comes from Delhi, it will get a special status. In legal parlance, when the dictum is aired from Supreme Court, obviously it is from Delhi. But even then, despite of all the legal obligations, someone will not care to follow the same. This was the prevailing attitude in South, in the case of Pepsico Case and Prevention of Food Adulteration matters.

The Supreme Court in Pepsico Case (2011 1 SCC 176), held that since there is no prescribed method of analysis as mandated by section 23 (1A)(ee)(hh) of erstwhile Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the reports which are being followed by DGHS manual cannot be relied upon for a conviction in Food Adulteration cases. The Apex court categorically said that, the DGHS method (Director General of Health Service) is a secret method and unless and until it is laid down before the Parliament and get approval, the same cannot be used as a method for analysis in food cases. Therefore, the fate of all the Food Adulteration cases which depends on the analysis report of DGHS manual would have to result in an acquittal. Naturally, the effect is very sweeping and it may uproot the prosecution in umpteen food adulteration cases. But if the law is trite, there is no other denouement.

But though the Kerala High Court had its tradition in accepting the contentions which was raised in Pepsico case even much before the same was mooted before the Supreme Court. Justice A K Basheer in a unreported decision had held that, since the method of analysis is not known to the accused, there cannot be a conviction on the basis of such a secret method. The said case was not reported or not caused to be reported for various reasons. Thereafter the Pepsico case came. Justice Gopinathan of Kerala High Court, in some of his judgments, accepted the contention of Pepsico case and acquitted the accused in Food cases. But thereafter, Justice SatheesaChandran of Kerala High Court refused to follow the Pepsico case, even though it is rendered by the Apex Court. According to him, it was a different case and the circumstances were different. But it was apparent that, even a bare reading of Pepsico decision will make it clear that unless the method of analysis is approved by the legislature, the same cannot be relied upon. There is no room for the soft corner for the trial Judges who happened to follow the traditional existing method of prosecution and limiting the chances of defenses in Food Cases. If it is later reveals that they all were simply following a bad law, it ought to have changed.

At last, the Kerala High Court again showed its boldness to declare that Pepsio Case is binding on all Food cases and all the analysis on the basis of DGHS manual should go. Justice Kemal Pasha (2013 3 KLT 455) held that, the Pepsico case is squarely applicable to all food materials and its scope is not limited to carbonated drinks alone. The Judge also shown the boldness to report the matter in Journals. We do not know, when the Jurisdiction changes, whether the settled position would also change. However for time being, the air from Delhi is ruling the roost in this regard.