Allowed

Ashraf v. Food Inspector, Attingal Municipality

Kerala HC19 May 2016Crl.MC/2477/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against a vendor (petitioner) for food adulteration, ruling that prosecution is pointless since proceedings against the product manufacturer supplying the goods were already quashed by this court.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings as against the petitioner in S.T.No.963 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal stand quashed.

Ashraf Vs Food Inspector, Attingal Municipality — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2016/29TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2477 of 2016 ()

¶6

--------------------------ST.NO. 963/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, ATTINGAL

¶7

PETITIONER/(1ST ACCUSED):

¶8

ASHRAF,

¶9

AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.ASANARU LEBBA, NISHA MANZIL, KALLAMBALAM-695 605.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/(COMPLAINANT & STATE):

¶12

1. FOOD INSPECTOR, ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, ATTINGAL-695 101.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.P.SATHI

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 2477 of 2016 ()

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE-A1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PUBLIC ANALYIST DATED 19.10.2007. ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT 4.07.2008. ANNEXURE-A3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2016 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO.1774 OF 2013.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶27

¶28

Crl.M.C. No. 2477 of 2016

¶29

- - - - Dated 19^th May, 2016

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

1.This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶33

The petitioner is the first accused in S.T.No.963 of 2008

¶34

on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. The said complaint was filed by the Food Inspector Attingal Municipality alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 2(i a), (c) read with Section 7(1) and Section 16(1) a(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and Rule 5 item No:A.05.20.01 fo the appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955.

¶35

3.The allegation is that on 14.9.2007, the Food Inspector of Attingal, Municipality inspected the shop room of the petitioner and samples were taken which were found adulterated on analysis. After complying with the

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.2477 of 2016 -2-

¶37

mandatory formalities, complaint was lodged before the learned Magistrate. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the said

¶38

complaint are the manufacturers of the adulterated turmeric powder and it is they who had supplied the same to the petitioner.

¶39

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had approached this Court and preferred Crl.M.C.No.1774 of 2013 challenging the validity of the analysis report involved in the aforesaid crime. This Court, relying on the decision reported in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector and Another [2010 (4) KLT 706 (SC)] and in Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector [2013 (3) KLT 455] and also taking note of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Rasheed N.K. V Food Inspector , Thalassery 2016 (1) KLD 704 came to the conclusion that the continued prosecution of the petitioners who are accused Nos.2 and 3 in the aforesaid crime was illegal.

¶40

Crl.M.C. No.2477 of 2016 -3-

¶41

On that basis, the prosecution proceedings as against accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are the manufacturers of the food item were quashed.

¶42

5.According to the learned counsel, the petitioner herein is a small time vendor and he being a person who was entitled to warranty under section 19(2) of the Act should also be extended the benefits of the Annexure A 3 order . It is further highlighted that in view of Annexure A3 judgment, quashing the proceedings as against accused Nos. 2 and 3, there is no point in directing the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of protracted trial.

¶43

6.I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel. As the proceedings as against the manufacturer of the food item has already been quashed by this Court on the basis of the pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court, no purpose will be served in prosecuting the petitioner.

¶44