The Final Order was passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Remya Menon. Advocate Manumon A appeared for the accused. Deputy Director of Prosecution Rajesh Lakshman Bhagath R appeared for the complainant.
The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, has dropped criminal proceedings in a food safety case after finding that conflicting laboratory reports weakened the prosecution case. Chief Judicial Magistrate Remya Menon passed the order on October 30, 2025.
Prosecution Case
The prosecution alleged that on May 22, 2023, at about 3.30 p.m., the first accused sold unsafe jaggery to the Food Safety Officer at the premises of Xtra Mart, 19/914/1, Pauls Arcade, Ollukkara, Thrissur. The prosecution further alleged that the second accused was the Managing Director of the fourth accused, the food business establishment.
Based on these allegations, the prosecution charged the accused with offences under Sections 3(1)(zz)(iii)(v)(viii), 26(1), 26(2)(i), and 27(3)(d) read with Sections 59 and 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act. It also invoked Regulation 2.8.4(2) and Food Category System 11.1.6 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011.
Discharge Plea By Accused
Through Advocate Manumon A, the accused sought discharge. They argued that the complainant had filed a false complaint and that the laboratory reports contained material discrepancies.
The defence pointed out that the Regional Analytical Laboratory, Kakanad, in its report dated June 2, 2023, detected the synthetic colour Rhodamine B. However, the Referral Food Laboratory, Pune, in its report dated September 7, 2023, detected Tartrazine. The accused argued that this inconsistency affected the conclusive value of the reports and shook the foundation of the prosecution case. They contended that the evidence was insufficient, unreliable, or legally inadmissible, and therefore the Court should discharge them.
Also Read: Sonam Wangchuk NSA Detention Revoked
Stand Of Prosecution
The Court served a copy of the discharge petition on the Deputy Director of Prosecution, Thrissur. He fairly conceded that variation existed between the two reports. He relied on Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2024 Supreme (Online) (KER) 31752).
Court’s Analysis
After hearing both sides, the Court examined the two laboratory reports. It noted that the Regional Analytical Laboratory report referred to Rhodamine B, while the Referral Food Laboratory report referred to Tartrazine.
The Court then explained the difference between the two substances. It noted that Rhodamine B is a chemical compound and dye often used as a tracer dye in water to determine the rate and direction of flow and transport. It also noted that Rhodamine dyes fluoresce and can be detected easily and inexpensively with fluorometers.
The Court further noted that Tartrazine is a synthetic lemon yellow azo dye used mainly as a food colouring. It is also known as E number E102, C I 19140, FD&C Yellow 5, Yellow 5 Lake, Acid Yellow 23, Food Yellow 4, and trisodium 1-(4-sulfonatophenyl)-4-(4-sulfonatophenylazo)-5-pyrazolone-3 carboxylate. The Court observed that Tartrazine is widely used as a colouring agent across the world, mainly for yellow, and that manufacturers can also use it with brilliant blue FCF (FD&C Blue 1, E133) or green S (E142) to produce green shades. It also serves as a dye for wool and silk, a colourant in food, drugs, and cosmetics, and an adsorption-elution indicator for chloride estimations in biochemistry.
The Court held that both colours are different and have different chemical formulae. It also noted that each report excluded the presence of the other colour. For that reason, the Court found the results divergent in nature.
Reliance On Precedent
The Court referred to Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala. It noted that in that case, the Court examined divergent findings from two laboratories and held that the prosecution cannot continue unless the Referral Laboratory clearly confirms the Food Analyst’s conclusions. The Court also noted that the judgment highlighted a procedural gap in the Food Safety and Standards Act, as the law does not provide a mechanism for the accused to challenge the Referral Laboratory’s report when it contradicts the Food Analyst’s findings.
Also Read: Kejriwal Liquor Policy Case Transfer Plea: SC Move
Proceedings Dropped
In light of the divergent laboratory findings, the Court held that the accused had no mechanism to challenge either report. It therefore found that continuing the prosecution on the basis of such unreliable reports would be futile. On that reasoning, the Court stopped the proceedings under Section 258 CrPC and discharged the accused.
If you want, I can now give you a revised meta description, a stronger focus keyphrase, and SEO-friendly subheadings for Yoast.
Case: Vikas Velayudhan & Ors v State represented by Food Safety Officer, Thrissur Circle | Crl.M.P. 8086/2025 in ST 3878/2024.
Also Read: Lokpal Sanction Chargesheet Prosecution: SC Notice
