IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4249 of 2007() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/11/2007 IN CMP.1754/2007 IN CC.588/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- V.V.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMBU, SHAJI BAKERY, M.P.V.-713, PAYANGADI, MADAYI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAMAPURAM, MANDOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FOOD INSPECTOR, MADAYI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR CIRCLE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. K.K.SAJEEVAN, KAKKADI KANNADIYAN, K.K.HOUSE, EDAKKAPURAM WEST, P.O.CHERUKUNNAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.4249 of 2007 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondents. 2. This revision is in challenge of order dated 7.11.2007 on C.M.P.No.1754 of 2007 in C.C.No.588 of 2003 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannoor. Petitioner while facing trial for offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, “the Act”) and the Rules claimed protection of Section 19(2) of the Act. He produced certain documents in support of that contention and filed C.M.P.No.1754 of 2007 to implead the alleged manufacturer. That petition was resisted by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor pointing out that the documents produced are not proper. Learned magistrate accepted the objection and dismissed the petition. It is contended by the learned counsel that on the materials on record, manufacturer should have been impleaded as additional accused which was necessary for petitioner to avail protection of Section 19(2) of the Act. 3. Going through the order under challenge it would appear that in respect of the alleged purchase of food articles from the manufacturer so-called, petitioner had not produced evidence. Section 20A of the Act permits impleading when on the evidence adduced before it the court is satisfied that such impleadment of the manufacturer, etc. is called for. Mere production of Crl.R.P.No.4249/2007 2 documents cannot amount to evidence as per Section 20A of the Act. Moreover impleadment of the manufacturer so-called is not essential for the petitioner to set up his defence under Section 19(2) of the Act. As such I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Notwithstanding the dismissal of C.M.P.No.1754 of 2007 it will be open to the petitioner to set up all defence available to him under the Act. Accordingly revision is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks