IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2470 of 2009 -------------------------------- ST.527/2009 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .......................................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SONY JOSEPH, KODANKANDATH HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA.P.O.VIDAKUZHA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.JALEEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. E.N.SHINE, FOOD INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF KOCHI. 2. K.P.NAZAR, M/S. WINNER OVEN FRESH, BANERJEE ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT FOOD INSPECTOR, LOCAL (HEALTH) AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.VINOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 2470 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 29th July 2009 O R D E R Accused in S.T.527/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against him. It is disclosed that on 16/10/2008, when Food Inspector came to the hotel “M/s.Winner Over Fresh” and purchased Biriyani for taking samples petitioner was there. Petition also shows that it was the petitioner who issued a voucher for selling Biriyani to the Food Inspector. The only defence raised is that he has nothing to do with the hotel and as the cashier was not there at that time, as he disappeared, at the insistence of his friend, who is the brother of the owner he issued the voucher and hence he cannot be prosecuted. Petitioner also produced Annexure-B reply sent by him to the Food Inspector, when the details were sought for. In Annexure-B petitioner did not disclose these facts and did not even mention that so-and-so is the CRMC 2470/09 2 owner and he was there at that time when sample was taken to purchase Biriyani and at the instance of the owner he signed the voucher. Question whether the case now set up by the petitioner is true or not cannot be decided in this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. On that basis petitioner is not entitled to get quash proceedings, as admittedly it was the petitioner who issued the receipt for purchase of Biriyani to the Food Inspector. Petitioner is entitled to raise all the contentions at the time of trial. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.