KOTTAYAM v. REVN

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner died on

6.10.2008 after filing this revision. Though none of the legal representatives of deceased petitioner have come forward to continue with the revision it cannot be abated since Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application. Hence it is necessary to dispose of the revision on merits. I heard learned counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor.

Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam in C.C.No.137 of 1991 for offences punishable under Section 7(iii) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, “the Act”) and Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short, “the Rules”) for the alleged sale of food articles without licence from the local authority as required under the provisions of the Act and Rules. Courts below found against petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and fine of Rs.100/-. A default sentence of imprisonment for 10 days was also provided.

Evidence of Food Inspector coupled with the documents CRL. R.P. NO.1015 OF 2002 -: 2 :- marked in favour of prosecution would show that Food Inspector inspected the shop of petitioner on 10.5.1991 at about 2.30 p.m., purchased soft drinks from the shop and it was collected in separate clean, dry bottles and sent to the laboratory for examination. According to the Food Inspector enquiry with the local authority revealed that petitioner was not issued with licence for sale of such food article during 1991-92. Accordingly complaint was preferred against petitioner. Exhibits P5 and P6 and evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, Food Inspector and Secretary of the local authority would show that petitioner was not issued with any licence during the relevant time. In an attempt to prove that there was no practice of shop owners going to the local authority for renewal of licence petitioner examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and proved Ext.D1 series. According to D.Ws 1 and 2 the place where petitioner was engaged in business is a waterlogged area and it was difficult for people to go to the office of the local authority. It is difficult to believe that there was no practice of shop owners going to office of the local authority. Fact remained that during the relevant time petitioner had no licence as required under the Act and Rules. Courts below therefore rightly found that petitioner committed the offence as alleged. Though in the appellate CRL. R.P. NO.1015 OF 2002 -: 3 :- court a contention was raised that P.W1 had no authority to initiate complaint, appellate court referred to Ext.P1 and found that sufficient authority was given to P.W.1 to lodge the compliant. There is no merit in the contention that conviction of petitioner is not legal or proper. Sentence awarded is in accordance with the provisions of the Statute and required no interference. However, consequent to the death of petitioner, sentence of imprisonment and default sentence have become unexecutable. Revision Petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. CRL. R.P. NO.1015 OF 2002 -: 4 :- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL. R.P. NO.1015 OF 2002 ===================

O R D E R 28TH JULY, 2009