IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 266 of 2011() ----------------------------- (C.C.1080/2008 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KODUNGALLOOR) ..... PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------------ KHANSHYAM, AGED 67, S/O.LATE KASIPRASAD, MANAGER, MAHESWARI DAL AND OIL MILLS, KAMAL BRAND, DAL AND POLISH, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, LALITHPUR, UTHAR PRADESH-284 403. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMARAJ RESPONDENT(S):COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, KODUNGALLOOR CIRCLE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.266 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 31st day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No.1276 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungaloor. That case arose on a complaint preferred by respondent No.1, food Inspector alleging that accused Nos.1 and 2 committed various offences under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, "the PFA Act”). Petitioner was allegedly impleaded as accused No.3 in the case and summons was issued to the petitioner as per order dated 26.12.2007. Later, accused Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted as per Annexure-C, judgment dated 31.12.2008. Case against petitioner was split up and refiled as C.C.No.1080 of 2008. Prayer in this petition is to quash complaint against petitioner on the ground that petitioner is not involved in the case and that evidence adduced by respondent No.1 and accused Nos.1 and 2 would show that there is no incriminating circumstances to connect petitioner with the food article allegedly adulterated. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor who appeared for respondents. Crl.M.C.No.266 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. It is seen that on a petition filed by second accused summons was ordered to the petitioner as accused No.3 as per order dated 26.12.2007. Petitioner has a contention that he was impleaded as accused No.3 in C.C.No.1276 of 2005 without recording any evidence as required under Sec.20A of the Act. If that be so, remedy of petitioner is to challenge the order dated 26.12.2007 in appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum. Petitioner cannot seek acquittal on the ground that accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted as per Annexure-C, judgment. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge the order dated 26.12.2007 issuing summons to the petitioner as accused No.3 in C.C.No.1276 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungaloor. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-