IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3377 of 2010() ------------------------- STC.815/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. M/S.SHIVAKRIPA HOME APPLIANCES, GALA NO.8, SY.NO.455/3 MASAT, SILVASA, MAHARASHTRA-369 230. 2. M/S.PROTECH APPLIANCES (P) LTD., G-261, IIND FLOOR, DOOR NO.27/543C, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 3. GEORGE POULOSE, DIRECTOR, M/S.PROTECH APPLIANCES (P) LTD., G-261, IIND FLOOR, DOOR NO.27/543C, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI-682 036. 4. C.P.MAMAN, MANAGING PARTNER M/S.PROTECH APPLIANCES (P) LTD., G-261, IIND FLOOR, DOOR NO.27/543C, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 5. M/S.BROTHERS ENTERPRISES, 17/441, BROTHERS ARCADE, MAIN ROAD, MALAPPURAM-676 519. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR, LEGAL METROLOGY, NILAMBUR - 679 330. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 31. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.3377 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: 16.08.2010 ORDER The petitioners are accused in S.T.C.No.815 of 2010 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Perinthalmanna for offences punishable under Sections 39 and 33 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Rules 4, 6(1) and 9(1)(d) of the Standard of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The petitioners seek to quash Annexure I complaint and the subsequent proceedings pending before the Magistrate. The above case involve summons trial. 2. It is too early for this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the complaint and subsequent proceedings and also consider whether the ingredients of the offences are made out in the prosecution records. The Magistrate can state the substance of accusation to the accused and record their plea under Section 251 Cr.P.C only if the substance of accusation contains the ingredients of the offence alleged. In the light of the decision in Anandavel v. Food Inspector and another (2010 (3) ILR Kerala 145), it is Crl. M.C. No.3377 of 2010 2 open to the petitioners to raise the present contentions at the time when the learned Magistrate records their plea under Section 251 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners pray for exemption from appearance while raising the above plea before the Magistrate. I am inclined to permit the petitioners to be represented through their counsel. Accordingly, if the petitioners file a petition for exemption during the stage of 251 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate shall consider the contention of the petitioners while recording their plea without insisting on their personal appearance. The plea of the accused can be recorded through their counsel. This Crl.M.C is accordingly disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj