Allowed

Nishad M.S v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2010Crl.MC/475/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminalMiscellaneous Petition challenged the quashing of proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The court held that a report from the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(3) supersedes the Public Analyst's report. As the latter exonerated the accused, the continuation of proceedings was an abuse of process, and the case was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case C.C.1019/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod is quashed.

Nishad M.S Vs the State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 475 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------------CC.1019/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2

¶8

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

¶9

M.S. NISHAD, S/O. M.S.AZAD, AGED 40, AZAD PROCESSED FOODS, DOOR NO.20/1102, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE-673 003, RESIDING AT "SIRAJ NIVAS", P.O.KALLAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.SRINATH GIRISH, MR.E. NARAYANAN..

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

2. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, KASARGOD CIRCLE, KASARGODE.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶19

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

¶20

CRL.M.C.No. 475 OF 2010

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 3^rd day of March,2010

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.1019/2008 on the file of Judicial First

¶25

Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kasaragod taken cognizance for the offence under section 16(1) (a)(i) read with section 2(ia)(m) and Section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Prosecution case is that on 26.6.2008 at 2.30 p.m second respondent Food Inspector purchased green chilly sauce from B.M. Traders, Poinachi of Chemnad Grama Panchayat of Kasaragod Taluk after disclosing his identity and prepared three identical samples in the presence of the vendor and one such sample was sent to the public analyst and obtained Annexure III report, showing that the sample does not conform to the standards prescribed for chilly

¶26

Crl.M.C.475/2010 2

¶27

under Appendix B A.16.28 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and therefore it is adulterated. It is based on Annexure III report, Annexure I complaint was filed. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. Petitioner on his appearance availed the remedy provided under section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and requested to send one of the remaining two samples kept at

¶28

the Local Health Authority to Central Food Laboratory. It was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. Annexure II report was received from

¶29

the Central Food Laboratory stating that the sample conforms to the standards of fruits and vegetable sauces, other than tomato and soya sauce i.e chilly sauce as per Prevention of Food

¶30

Adulteration Rules.

¶31

This petition is filed under section 482 of

¶32

the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that as Annexure III report

¶33

Crl.M.C.475/2010 3

¶34

is superseded by Annexure II report of the Central

¶35

Food Laboratory and hence the continuation of the

¶36

proceedings is only an abuse of process of the court.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶39

Annexure I complaint is filed based on Annexure III report received from the Public Analyst, which shows that the sample does not conform to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Annexure II report was furnished by the Central Food Laboratory on analysis of one of the sample sent under section 13(2B) from the court on an application filed by the petitioner under section 13(2A) of the Act. As rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as provided under section 13(3) of

¶40

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the

¶41

certificate issued by the Director of Central Food

¶42

Crl.M.C.475/2010 4

¶43

Laboratory under section 13(2B) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. Under sub section 3 of Section 13 of the Act the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. Hence when Annexure III report is superseded by Annexure II report only Annexure II report can now be relied on. When Annexure II report establishes that the sample conforms to the standards prescribed under the Rules, continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of process of the court. Hence in the interest of justice, the case is to be quashed.

¶44

Petition is allowed. C.C.1019/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod is quashed.

¶45

tpl/-

¶46

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶47

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶48

W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶49

--------------------JUDGMENT

¶50

SEPTEMBER,2006

Nishad M.S v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishad M.S v. the State of Kerala

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

Mohammed Rafi Vs State of Kerala

Nizar Aziz Vs State of Kerala and Others

S.Ajith Vs State of Kerala

Sridharan Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Vs State of Kerala

B.K.Kunhikrishnan Vs State of Kerala and Another