Food Safety Officer sought leave to appeal against the Magistrate's acquittal of two food business operators, contending the trial court callously invoked Section 256(1) CrPC. The court found sufficient reasons to appeal and granted leave.
Criminal leave granted to appeal against the order of acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.L.P. NO. 187 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2022 IN ST NO.1087 OF 2019 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, VATAKARA PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
THE FOOD SAFETY OFFICER
VATAKARA CIRCLE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION(AG-11)
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:
S/O. KANNAN, M/S.GRAND MART SHOPE, 7/654, 655, VELLIKULANGARA, ORKKATTERI, VADAKARA – 673510 RESIDING AT SHIJIL NIVAS, ONCHIYAM P.O, VADAKARA , KOZHIKKODE., PIN – 673308 (FOOD BUSINESS OPERATOR WHO SOLD UNSAFE FOOD TO THE FOOD SAFETY OFFICER WITHOUT LICENCE)
2 USHA T.M W/O.KUNHIKANNAN T.P, M/S.GRAND MART SHOPE, 7/654, 655, VELLIKULANGARA, ORKKATTERI, VADAKARA – 673510, RESIDING AT SHIJIL NIVAS , ONCHIYAM .P.O, VADAKARA KOZHIKKODE, PIN – 673308(RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF THE SHOP WHICH SOLD UNSAFE FOOD WITHOUT LICENSE TO THE FOOD SAFETY OFFICER)
THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.L.P.No.187 of 2022
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
----------------------------------------------------Crl.L.P.No.187 of 2022.
-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2024
O R D E R
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
Since the contention is that the trial court invoked provisions of Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to acquit the accused in a callous manner, I am of the view that there are sufficient reasons to appeal against the impugned order of acquittal.
Hence leave is granted.
Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
PV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there are sufficient reasons to grant leave to appeal against the trial court's acquittal of the accused under Section 256(1) CrPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Food Safety Officer, Vatakara Circle represented by the Public Prosecutor
T.P. Kunhikannan
Usha T.M
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
