Allowed

Tomy Eappen Kadavil v. Food Inspector

Kerala HC10 Sept 2012Crl.MC/2922/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed Criminal Misc. Case petition invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside Magistrate order dismissing impleadment of manufacturer in food adulteration trial. Court remitted matter to trial court to consider new evidence obtained via RTI. Justice N.K. Balakrishnan presided.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside impleadment petition dismissed was set aside; matter remitted to trial court to dispose of section 20A application afresh.

Tomy Eappen Kadavil Vs Food Inspector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/19TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2922 of 2007 ( ) --------------------------IN CC.812/2002 of J.M.F.C.,VAIKOM

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED::

¶7

TOMY EAPPEN KADAVIL S/O. EAPPEN JOSEPH, KALLARACKAL KADAVIL UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM, REPRESENTING FIRM M/S. P.K. VARGHESE & SONS, GENERAL MERCHANTS COCHIN-31 (2ND ACCUSED).

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY

¶9

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT/ADDL.3RD ACCUSED/STATE::

¶10

1. FOOD INSPECTOR

¶11

ETTUMANOOR CIRCLE, ETTUMANOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶12

2. MR. BINOY VARGHESE,

¶13

MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. P.K.VARGHESE & SONS

¶14

BASIN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, SHENOY ROAD, ERNAKULAM

¶15

KOCHI-17.

¶16

3. STATE OF KERALA,

¶17

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶18

BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE V.H.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 2922 of 2007 ( )

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNX I	:	COPY OF THE INSPECTOR	COMPLAINT DTD 24.10.2002 FILED BY THE FOOD
ANNX. II	:	COPY OF THE	MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE FOOD INSPECTOR
ANNX. III	:	COPY OF THE IMPLEAD THE	PETITION FILED U/S.17(A) OF THE PFA ACT TO 3RD ACCUSED AND AFFIDAVIT DTD.19.12.06
ANNX IV	:	COPY OF THE	ORDER IN CMP 8370/06
ANNX V	:	COPY OF THE	DEPOSITION OF DW2
ANNX VI	:	COPY OF THE ISSUED BY M/	SALES TAX INVOICE BILL NO:00341 DT.18.5.02 S. S.K.A.P. BALAKRISHNAN
ANNX VII	:	COPY OF THE	DEPOSITION OF DW4
ANNX VIII	:	COPY OF THE	DEPOSITION OF DW5
ANNX IX	:	COPY OF THE	PETITION FILED U/S.20(A) OF PFA ACT
ANNX X	:	COPY OF THE	ANALYST REPORT
ANNX XI	:	COPY OF THE	ORDER IN CMP NO:3594/07 DT.30.7.07
ANNX XII	:	COPY OF THE	LETTER ISSUED BY THE PIO, COMMERCIAL TAXES

¶24

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

JJJ

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶29

Crl. M.C. No: 2922 of 2007

¶30

Dated this the 10^th day of September, 2012

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in C.C.

¶33

No:812/2002 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikkom. Prosecution was initiated by the Food Inspector, (R1) against the petitioner and the Managing Partner of the firm for offence punishable under section 16 (i) a (i) and other provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Rules made thereunder.

¶34

A petition was filed by the petitioner under section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to implead the manufacturer. That petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate since the original bill, as per which the food article - moong dal was brought from the manufacturer to the shop/establishment of the petitioner, was not produced. A photocopy of the sales tax invoice was

¶35

Crl.M.C. No: 2922/2007

¶36

-2-

¶37

produced and evidence was let in to the effect that the original was destroyed by fire. While the case was pending before trial, in order to get that manufacturer impleaded, the petitioner has, in fact, summoned that person and examined him as DW 5. A copy of that deposition is also seen produced by the petitioner.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently, based on the application submitted by the petitioner under Right To Information Act, Annx A XII information was obtained. The learned counsel submits that the particulars mentioned therein would prove that the food article mentioned earlier was brought through Sales Tax Check Post, as evidenced by the photocopy of the Sales Tax Invoice produced before the court below. As such I find that the petitioner has made out a case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. Since the documents now produced before this Court have to come

¶39

Crl.M.C. No: 2922/2007

¶40

-3-

¶41

on record, the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the trial court to enable the petitioner to produce Annexure A XII also.

¶42

The learned counsel has drawn my attention to the evidence given by DW5 which also according to the petitioner supports his plea.

¶43

In the result this petition is allowed. The learned Magistrate will consider all those aspects afresh and will dispose of the application under section 20A as expeditiously as possible.

¶44

The parties will appear before the trial court on

¶45

27.09.2012 .

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶48

//True Copy//

¶49

P.A. to Judge

¶50

jjj

Tomy Eappen Kadavil v. Food Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tomy Eappen Kadavil 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

Shaji Vs M.I. Baby

S.O.Dersini Vs M.Arumughan

P.M.Bashir Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Kamala Rajaram Vs Dy.S.P. Office of the S.P.(Rural)

Shoukkath Vs State of Kerala & Another

P.Gopinathan Nair Vs State of Kerala and Another