IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 988 of 2011() ----------------------------------- C.C.NO. 210/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------ RAJEEV, S/O.K.KRISHNAN, VENDOR, EFC, R.C.ROAD, CALICUT, RESIDING AT 21-2603, PANNIYANKARA, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. FOOD INSEPCTOR, MOBILE VIGILANCE SQUAD, KOZHIKODE, CALICUT CORPORATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C No.988 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is 1st accused in C.C No.210 of 2007 of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode facing trial for offences punishable under the P.F.A Act and the Rules. 2. Case is that first respondent on 04.07.2007 purchased 750 grams of Tomato Ketchup from a 10 kg container from the restaurant. Petitioner is stated to have sold the food article to the first respondent. The sample was found adulterated. Though various other contentions raised in this proceeding, petitioner limits his contention to one point that he is only the Manager of the Partnership Firm for which a nominee has been appointed as per nomination made by the 3rd accused and hence petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted. Reliance is placed on the decisions in State (Delhi Admn.) v. I.K.Nangia and another (AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1977) and Govinda Rao v. Food Inspector (2002(1) KLT 843). 3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The question whether there is nomination or not, and if so, petitioner could be made Crl.M.C No.988 of 2011 -2- liable are matter which the trial court has to decide at the appropriate stage. That being a question of fact, I am inclined to think that this Court is not justified in interfering under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashing proceedings against petitioner. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at the appropriate stage. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to raise appropriate contentions before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode at the appropriate stage. Sd/- THOMAS.P.JOSEPH JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE krj