IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2221 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CC.691/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NADAPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3. ---------------------- M/S.WHITE FIELD DIARY (P) LTD., ANNAMALAI, POLLACHI, TAMILNADU, ADMN.OFFICE, MINI BYE PASS ROAD, CALICUT-6, KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS NOMINEE SREEDHARAN NAIR, QUALITY SUPERVISOR. BY ADV.MR.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, PERAMBRA CIRCLE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SALIM P.A. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C No.2221 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks to have the proceedings against him in C.C No.691/2006 quashed. 2. A complaint was filed under Section 16(1)9a)(i) r/w Section 7 and 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Petitioner, it is stated, who shown as the 3rd accused filed C.M.P No.1048/2008 in C.C No.691/2006 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram. Commodity in question is milk. In the complaint available before this court, the 2nd accused is shown as Mr.Sreedharan Nair, Quality Supervisor, and he is indicated as the nominee of the company. The 3rd accused is the company itself. Contention of the petitioner is that accused No.2 and 3 are one and the same person and the court below was not justified in treating the matters in two separate entities. Even according to the complainant the 3rd accused was only a nominee of the company and he had no independent liability. 3. It appears that summons was issued against the 3rd accused, petitioner herein. He took up the matter in the revision. While disposing of the revision petition, the Sessions Judge hold Crl.M.C No.2221 OF 2008 Page numbers that the Magistrate shall consider all the contentions and pass appropriate order. 4. Accordingly, petitioner filed C.M.P No. 1048/2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram. Annexure A2 is the said petition. Copy of the statement filed by the Food Inspector is produced as Annexure A3. The petition was dismissed. The order is assailed. 5. The claim of the petitioner is that accused No.2 and 3 are one and same person. Ext.A3 shows that the petitioner was only a nominee of the company. There is nothing to indicate that he had acted in his personal capacity. There is no averment that he was the person who was in charge of the affairs of the company and he is also responsible. The learned Public Prosecutor was also not able to support the order impugned. 6. Considering the above facts, the present case is nothing but waste of time and accordingly proceedings in C.C. No.691/2006 with respect to the petitioner and all further proceedings are quashed. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE