K.R.UDAYABHANU & Anr. v. Stateof Kerala (2005(2) KLD (cri) 342) in this regard also.3.Evidently, analysing & Anr.

K.R.UDAYABHANU, J --------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2897 of 2000 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007

O R D E RThe revision petitioners are the accused in S.T.5/00 in the file of JFCM II, Harippadu with respect to the offence under Section 16(i)(a)(i)(II) and read with Section 2(ia) (a) (j) and Section 7(1) and (V) of PFA Act, 1954 and Rules 29(d) and 30 ofPFA Rules, 1955 on the allegation that the soft drink concentrate purchased by the Food Inspector from the first accused on examination by public analyst was found to contain synthetic food colour exceeding the limit prescribed under Rule 30 of thePFA Rules. 2. The revision petitioners has produced Annexure A2report of the chemical analyst which would show that the sample contained 2652.0 parts per million. The counsel has contended that the test conducted is in violation of Rule 30 which stipulates the maximum limit of 100 parts per million of final food or beverage for consumption. Evidently, it is the concentrate that has been tested in the laboratory. Counsel has relied on the CRMC2897/2000Page numbers decision of the court below in P.K.Madhu and another vs. Stateof Kerala and another (2005(2) KLD (cri) 342) in this regard also. 3. Evidently, analysing of the concentrate is not contemplated under Rule 3 and hence in the absence of analysis of the sample of the final food or beverage for consumption, the prosecution cannot be sustained. Hence, the proceedings initiated in S.T.No.5/00 in the court of JFCM-II, Harippadu is herewith quashed. The Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGEcsl