IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 644 of 2011() ----------------------------- (C.C. NO.71/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA) ................. PETITIONER(S): ------------------- C.K.SARASAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.SRI.KARUTHA PANCIKER SARAS BAKERY, THATTARAMBALAM, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR SMT.K.N.RAJANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 101. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.644 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of April, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.71 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara facing trial for offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules thereunder (for short, "the Act and Rules”). Case is that on 27.07.2009 the first respondent/Food Inspector purchased cherry from petitioner. It is contended in this proceeding that analysis was conducted in violation of the mandatory requirements of Rule 17 of the Rules by collecting the sample in polythene bags. It is contended that the food article in question is a primary food. Public Analyst and CFL treated the product as a proprietary food. It is contended that in the circumstances, report of the Public Analyst as well as Annexure- A3, report of the CFL which superseded the report of the Public Analyst cannot be accepted. A further contention is that the test was conducted eight months after the alleged seizure and sampling. 2. It is not clear from the submission of learned counsel whether pre-charge evidence was recorded but, it would appear Crl.M.C.No.644 of 2011 -: 2 :- that some of the witnesses are already examined, be it for framing charge or after the frame of charge. If charge has not already been framed by the Court it is open to the petitioner to raise his contentions before the learned Magistrate at the time of framing charge. If on the other hand, charge has already been framed his contentions can be raised in the course of trial. Leaving the above options open to the petitioner and if necessary to seek exemption from personal appearance in Court this criminal miscellaneous case is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-