Disposed

N.Ravikumar v. Food Inspector

Kerala HC3 Oct 2008Crl.MC/3344/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashment of food adulteration proceedings. The court directed the trial court to hear the petitioners' application for exemption from personal appearance without insisting on their presence at all hearings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners exempted from insistence of personal appearance pending trial court consideration of Section 17 application.

N.Ravikumar Vs Food Inspector — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930

¶3

Crl.MC.No. 3344 of 2005

¶4

CC.663/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE

¶5

PETITIONERS: ACCUSED 2 TO 7

¶6

---------------------------------------------1. N.RAVIKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CONSUMER PROTECTION & GUIDANCE CO LTD., U.P.1/651-C, KANDANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT T.C.37/143, AGED 63 YEARS, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

R.DINESH, S/O.RAVIKUMAR, DIRECTOR, CONSUMER PROECTION & GUIDANCE CO LTD., U.P.1/651-C, KANDANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT T.C.37/143, AGED 63 YEARS, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

B.NAGARAJAN NAIR, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, DIRECTOR CONSUMER PRPTECTION & GUIDANCE CO LTD., U.P.1/651-C, KANDANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT T.C.9/222, VALIYAVILA VEEDU, TRIVANDRUM.

¶9

T.S.JAYAPAL, S/O.SOMASUNDARAM, DIRECTOR, CONSUMER PROTECTION & GUIDANCE CO LTD., U.P.1/651-C, KANDANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT ERA 137, THOTTAM, MANACADU P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

¶10

IMAM SALIH, S/O.ABUBACKER, DIRECTOR, CONSUMER PROTECTION & GUIDANCE CO LTD., U.P.1/651-C, KANDANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT A-1, 2C, ABAD GARDEN COURT, ALINCHUVADU, ERNAKULAM

¶11

P.R.BABURAJ, S/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, DIRECTOR, CONSUMER PROTECTION & GUIDANCE CO LTD., U.P.1/651-C, KANDANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT 48/1840 A, PRANAVAM, PERUMPOTTA ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU

¶13

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶14

-------------------------------------------1. FOOD INSPECTOR, MOBILE VIGILANCE SQUAD, KOZHIKODE(REPRESENTED BY FOOD INSPECTOR, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION)

¶15

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

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

A.K. Basheer, J.

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶20

Crl.M.C.No. 3344 of 2005-C

¶21

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶22

Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2008 ORDER

¶23

Petitioners who have been arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 7 in CC.No.663/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-V, Kozhikode have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the above proceedings pending against them.

¶24

The above Calendar Case has been filed by the Food Inspector, Mobile Vigilance Squad, Kozhikode alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 16(1-A)(i) and Section 16(1-a)(i) read with Section 2(1a)(j), Section 3(ix)d and Section 7(1) and (ii) and Rule 27 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act 1954 and the Rules.

¶25

The case of the complainant appears to be that the food article purchased by him on February 15, 2003 for the purpose of analysis was found to be adulterated. Consequently petitioners and 10 others who are stated to be the Company, its Managing Director, Directors etc. have been implicated in Annexure A1 complaint.

¶26

I do not propose to refer to or deal with the various averments made in the complaint at this stage. However the contentions raised by the petitioners have to be briefly noticed in order to consider the question whether the proceedings pending against them are liable to be quashed by invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code.

¶27

The case of the petitioners is that in view of the provisions

¶28

Crl.MC.3344/2005

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

contained in Section 17(2) of the Act, they are not liable to be prosecuted. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be the Managing Director of the Company and others are its Directors. According to petitioners, the Manager of the branch concerned at Calicut had already been arraigned as accused No.1. Similarly accused No.8 who was the licensee of the branch at Kozhikode is also on the array of the accused. The case of the petitioners is that accused accused Nos.1 and 8 are in exclusive charge of the branch in question and therefore the Managing Director and Directors who had no active role or participation in the business of the branch are not liable to be prosecuted. It is further contended that petitioners had filed an application to implead the nominated person in the case as provided under Section 17 of the Act before the learned Magistrate. Their grievance is that the said application has not yet been taken up for consideration. Lastly it is contended by the petitioners that the complainant has not produced any document to show that petitioners were in fact responsible for the conduct of the business of the branch at Kozhikode.

¶31

In my view, these are all contentions which the petitioners have to necessarily urge before the trial court itself. I do not find any reason why the learned Magistrate shall not take up the application, if any, filed by the petitioners under Section 17 of the Act and take a decision thereon, in accordance with law.

¶32

However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate shall not insist for the personal appearance of the petitioners/accused on all hearing dates. If an application is moved on behalf of the petitioners, to exempt them from personal

¶33

Crl.MC.3344/2005

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

appearance, the learned Magistrate shall consider the said request in accordance with law.

¶36

It is made clear that I have not considered the merit of any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. It shall be open to the petitioners to urge all their contentions before the learned Magistrate. Crl.M.C is disposed of in the above terms.

¶37

A.K. Basheer Judge.

¶38

an.

N.Ravikumar v. Food Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ravikumar v. Food Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariyumma Vs Abdul Salam

State of Kerala Vs Kutty Kani Bharathy Kani

Shahul Hameed Vs Shri K.J. Mathew I.A.S

M.K.Muhamed Kunju Vs a.P.Abdul Rahman

K.T.Thomas Vs State

Abdul Salam Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Areacode