IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3416 of 2008() ------------------------------------ (C.C.NO.53/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONERS:ACCUSED NOS. 2 & 3: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. N.P.ANTONY, NAMBIATTUKUDY, OKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. M/S. PAVIZHAM HEALTHIER DIET (PVT.) LTD., KOOVAPADY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY A2. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT. C.G.PREETHA SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA.P. SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ANISH.S. RESPONDENT: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3416 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under the provisions of the P.F.A. Act. The crux of the allegations against them is that the rice brand oil which they sold with the name “Pavizhum heart care refined rice brand oil” is misbranded under Rule.37D of the P.F.A. Rules. The learned counsel contends that the allegations do not attract the offence under Sec.2(ix) of the P.F.A. Act. 2. At the moment and with the materials presently available, I find absolutely no reason to prematurely terminate the proceedings against the petitioners. I shall carefully avoid any detailed expressions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I do not find that the charge under Rule 37D read Crl.M.C. No. 3416 of 2008 -: 2 :- with Sec.2(ix) of the P.F.A. Rules and Act does, in any way, warrant premature termination. 3. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I have not intended to express any opinion on the complicity of the petitioners. I choose only to take the view that the proceedings do not deserve to be prematurely terminate by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 3416 of 2008 -: 3 :-