Dismissed

M.Vinod Kumar v. the Food Inspector

Kerala HC10 Jun 2009Crl.MC/1755/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of criminal charges under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It held that objections regarding prejudice due to delay and report handling are factual matters for trial, not review under Section 482 CrPC. However, the Magistrate was directed to decide the case expeditiously within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Magistrate directed to dispose case within six months.

M.Vinod Kumar Vs the Food Inspector — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1755 of 2009(B) -------------------------------------ST.NO.815/2003 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/ 1ST ACCUSED: -----------------------------------------

¶3

M.VINOD KUMAR, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, MADATHIL THAZHAM HOUSE, P.O. CHELANNUR, VIA. KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶4

BY ADV. MR.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM.

¶5

RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------

¶6

THE FOOD INSPECTOR, KOZHIKODE CIRCLE, BIG BAZAR, CALICUT.

¶7

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI.

¶8

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

prv.

¶10

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶11

==================== Crl.M.C. No. 1755 of 2009-B

¶12

====================

¶13

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2009.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Petitioner is the first accused in S.T.No.815/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode. The Food Inspector, Kozhikode filed a complaint alleging that on 22-1-2002 at about 11.30 AM the Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner at Parambil Bazar and after disclosing the identity, purchased 9 packets of coffee powder and three samples were prepared and one was forwarded to Public Analyst and two were produced before the Local Health Authority. Based on the report of Public Analyst alleging that petitioner committed the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 2(ix)g and 7(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 42(A)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, complaint was filed. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash S.T.No.815/2003 pending before the Magistrate contending that petitioner purchased the coffee

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.1755/2009-B

¶17

-2-

¶18

powder from the second accused and challenging the findings in the report of the Public Analyst and no offence is committed.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard.

¶20

On hearing the learned Counsel, I do not find that the points agitated by the petitioner are to be considered at this stage in a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Case of the petitioner is that the alleged adulterated coffee powder was packed in September, 2002 with a shelf life of 12 months as it is shown in the label that “best before 12 months” and sample was taken on 22-1-2003 and report of Public Analyst was received by Food Inspector on 28-2-2003, but copy of the report was not sent to the petitioner before August 2003 and as a result the remaining sample with the Local Health Authority could not be sent to the Central Food Laboratory and therefore right of the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was taken away

¶21

Crl.M.C.No.1755/2009-B

¶22

-3-

¶23

and thus serious prejudice is caused and for that reason the case is to be quashed. The question whether the nature of the coffee powder including the adulterant would change after the expiry of 12 months from the date of packing is a question to be decided on the basis of evidence. It cannot be decided in this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence the alleged prejudice caused is also a point to be considered and decided at the time of trial. Being a case under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which affects the life and health of the public, it cannot be quashed for the reason that it is pending since 2003. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions raised in this petition before the Magistrate in S.T.No.815/2003. As the case is pending before the Magistrate for the last more than five years, Magistrate is directed to dispose the case expeditiously, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶25

dkr

M.Vinod Kumar v. the Food Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vinod Kumar v. the 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

Erayathra Muhammed Musthafa Vs Pazhaya Thodi Ayisha

Satheesan.K.R Vs Ushakumari

Mohammed Shaheed Vs State of Kerala & Others

Joseph Thevalakkat Vs the Superintendent of Central Prison &

Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Kumar and Another Vs State of Kerala