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.