Dismissed

P.P.Gopinathan Achari v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Nov 2006Crl.MC/4805/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous petition filed by a retired Food Inspector against the State seeking quashing of proceedings under section 250 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The court held that initiating proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by mistake, when the matter fell under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, was a technical error and not an accusation without reasonable cause.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings pending as M.C.36/99 in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam are quashed and the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of.

P.P.Gopinathan Achari Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2006 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1928

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4805 of 1999()

¶6

-----------------------CC.1113/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM ....................

¶7

PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT

¶8

¶9

P.P. GOPINATHAN ACHARI, PUTHEN VEETTIL, MOOLAVATTOM, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.S.MANU

¶11

RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.3909 OF 1999 IN

¶17

CRL.M.C.NO.4805 OF 1999

¶18

DISMISSED

¶19

13-11-2006 Sd/K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE.

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.R. UDAYABHANU,J

Crl.M.C.No. 4805 OF 1999

¶24

Dated this the 13^th day of November,2006

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner who is a retired Food Inspector has sought for getting the proceedings initiated against him by the court below under section 250 Cr.P.C quashed. It is submitted that he was the complainant in C.C.1113 of 1997, with respect to the offence punishable under section 7 (i) and (iii) and read with section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 32 and 50(i) of PFA Rules. According to the petitioner he had demanded olive oil from the particular shop, purchased the same and sampled and sent for chemical analysis. On chemical analysis the sample was found to be wholly of ground nut oil and hence, evidently misbranded. The accused included the pharmasist, the proprietor of the shop, the distributor of the commodity as well as the manufacturer. The Court found that the item purchased is labeled as oli oil and manufactured as per the Drugs Licence validly issued. Hence, it was found that the prosecution was initiated under the PFA Act could not be sustained as the matter is covered by the Drugs and Cosmetics

¶27

¶28

Crl.M.C.No. 4805 OF 1999

¶29

Act. It was found that after being fully aware of the above fact, he proceeded with the complaint. Hence, the court acquitted the accused. But M.C.36/99 was registered against the complainant under section 250 Cr.P.C.

¶30

The counsel for the petitioner as well as the Government Pleader were heard.

¶31

On a perusal of the judgment of the court below in C.C.1113 of 97, I find that the prosecution initiated against the Food Inspector is totally unwarranted. Section 250 Cr.P.C envisages an accusation without reasonable cause. In the instant case evidently the accused had manufactured the particular commodity and distributed and sold the same apparently as Olive oil whereas the content was fully ground nut oil. Of course, the complainant Food Inspector could have got the matter proceeded by the concerned authorities under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and in which case the accused could have been found guilty and convicted or atleast the offence would have been sustainable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

¶32

In the circumstances, I find that the action of the petitioner,

¶33

Crl.M.C.No. 4805 OF 1999

¶34

¶35

Food Inspector , amounted to only a technical error in initiating the proceedings. It can, by no means, be held to be an accusation without reasonable cause. The counsel for the petitioner has cited the decision in Radheshyam Vs. State of Kerala 1999(2) K.L.J. 110 in support. This court has held in the above cited case that an article satisfies the definition of 'Food' under section 2(v) of the PFA Act, it will not lose its character as 'Food', even if it is sold or used for some other purposes. Any way it was submitted that the judgment in C.C.1113/1997 was taken up in appeal and confirmed. In the circumstances I find that there is no justification for initiating the proceedings against the petitioner under section 250 Cr.P.C. Hence, the proceedings pending as M.C.36/99 in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam is herewith quashed. The Crl.M.C is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE

¶37

dvs

P.P.Gopinathan Achari v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Gopinathan Achari v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tony Pyloth Vs Nellikunnath Moosa

Harikrishnadas Vs State of Kerala, Rep. Excise Inspector

Baby Vs State of Kerala

C.Suresh Raj Vs K.Babukuttan

K.R.Rejani Vs State of Kerala

Smt.Usha John Vs State of Kerala