Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID MONDAY,THE17H DAY OF MARCH201426TH PHALGUNA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 2105 of 2011 ( ) ---------------------------- CC.NO. 221/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO-1, THRISSUR ------------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED3AND4: --------------------------------------------------- 1. S.SATHYANATHAN ACTING BRANCH MANAGER, ITC LIMITED, SHENOY CHAMBERS COCHIN-31 2. M/S. ITC LIMITED, 37, J.L.NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATHA-700 071, REPRESENTED BY S. SATHYANATHAN BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA PIN-682031 2. FOOD INSEPCTOR, THRISSUR CIRCLE, PIN-680 001. *ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED --------------------------------- *3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. *ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED98.11 IN CRL.MC21052011. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASGI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1703-2014, ALONG WITH CRL.MC. 3128/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 2105 of 2011 ( ) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE A : CERTIFIED COPY OF CC NO. 221 OF2011 ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE FOOD INSPECTOR ON137-2010. ANNEXURE BI COPY OF THE TRANSLATED VERSION OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE FOOD INSPECTOR ON137-2010. ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PUBLIC ANALYST. ANNEXURE D THE FINISHED GOODS CLEARANCE CERTIFICATES DATED235-2010. ANNEXURE E THE SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS DATED295-2010. ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED315-2010. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C Nos. 2105 & 3128 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 17th March, 2014 ORDER
The petitioners in Crl.M.C No.3128 of 2011 are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C No.221 of 2011 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrates Court- I, Thrissur and the petitioners in Crl. M.C No.2105 of 2011 are accused Nos.3 and 4 in the said case. They have brought these two petitions with a prayer to quash the said prosecution on the ground that the said prosecution brought under Section 16 (1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ( hereinafter referred to as 'PFA Act' for short) is not legally sustainable.
2. When these two petitions came up for hearing, nobody turned to make arguments on behalf of the petitioners. However, on a perusal of the case records, I find that this is not a fit case where the powers under Section 482 of the Code of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised. The allegation in the complaint sought to be quashed is that a food article sold by one of the accused Crl.M.C Nos. 2105 & 3128 of 2011 2 to the Food Inspector was found containing extraneous starch and lead chromate constituting adulteration as meant under Clauses (c ) and (h) of Section 2 (1) (a) of the PFA Act. One of the accused is the principal offender, who sold the adulterated food article. The 2nd accused arraigned in the complaint is the licensee of the shop from where the adulterated article was purchased by the Food Inspector. The offence alleged in the complaint sought to be quashed is one punishable under Section 16 (1A) of the PFA Act. The sentence prescribed for the said offence is a minimum of imprisonment for one year. However, the sentence may extent up to six years.
3. This means that the alleged offence will involve warrant trial procedure. If so, the accused can very well make a plea for discharge before the trial court. If they are so confident that there is no material for a prosecution against them or any one of them, the accused can very well convince the trial court.
4. On a perusal of the complaint sought to be quashed, I find that this is a serious matter, wherein, the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Crl.M.C Nos. 2105 & 3128 of 2011 3 cannot be invoked to quash the proceedings. One of the accused is the alleged salesman, who sold the adulterated food article and the other is the licensee. As regards them, definite allegations are there in the complaint. Of course, if accused Nos.3 and 4 have got a case that they have no connection with the alleged food article, or if they have nothing to do with the alleged food article as dealer or manufacturer or otherwise, they can very well make a plea for discharge before the trial court. In the particular facts and circumstances, I find that this is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to make a plea for discharge before the trial court, these two petitions can be dismissed. In the result, these petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to make a plea for discharge before the trial court. Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/