IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3961 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.480/2009 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ERATTUPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3: -------------------------------------------------- MOIDEEN HAJEE, AGED 67 YEARS, MANAGER AND NOMINEE, PAZHANGADI OIL INDUSTRIES, KAIPPORIKARA, NORTH VAZHAKULAM, MARAMPALLY.P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.LIFFY P. FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, PALA CIRCLE. 2. DISTRICT FOOD INSPECTOR OF LOCAL (HEALTH) AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S. HRITWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3961 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 ORDER The petitioner herein is the third accused in C.C.No.480/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta. He is the Manager and Nominee of the fourth accused Firm. The offences alleged against him are those punishable under Section 7(1) read with 16 1a (i) and read with Section 2 (ia) (m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The article of food involved is gingelly oil. 2. The case is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta as C.C.No.480/2009. The petitioner has not appeared before that court in response to the summons issued against him. He has filed this application to quash all proceedings in the above C.C case. Crl.M.C. No.3961 of 2009 : 2 : 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, since the prosecution was launched on 4.8.09, i.e; after April 2009, which was the expiry date of the gingelly oil, the petitioner could not effectively exercise his right under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and he is prejudiced in his defence. The prosecution should therefore be quashed. 4. It is too early for this court to quash the prosecution as an abuse of the process of court. It is for the petitioner to raise all the defences available to him before the trial court and rely on the decisions cited by him before this court and reported in 1975 (I) FAC 186 , 1996 (1) FAC 304 and 2007 (2) KLJ 581. Hence, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all contentions available to him before the Magistrate, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner may appear before the learned Magistrate within two weeks from today and apply for regular bail. In case, he files an application for Crl.M.C. No.3961 of 2009 : 3 : regular bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of, notwithstanding the pendency of any non bailable warrants against him. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb