IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3425 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/08/2008 IN CRMP. 6081 /2008 IN CC.59/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): 4TH ACCUSED -------------------------- M/S.MALABAR FOOD PRODUCTS, 33/935, CHALIKAVATTOM, VENNALA SOUTH P.O., COCHIN - 28, REPRESENTED BY ITS NOMINEE T.S.MADHU (NOMINATION UNDER THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT). BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FOOD INSPECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA CIRCLE, OFFICE OF THE FOOD INSPECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3425 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He is the 4th accused on the array of accused now. When the prosecution was launched, there were only 3 accused; the 1st accused being the vendor, the 3rd accused being the wholesaler and the 2nd accused being the person representing the wholesaler. It is seen even from the report of the Public Analyst that the sample purchased from the vendor was “Fruitomans chilly sauce” manufactured by Malabar Food Products, Cochin, ie. the petitioner herein. The petitioner was not initially arrayed as an accused. In the course of the proceedings, the petitioner has been brought on the array of accused as the 4th accused invoking the powers under Section 20 A of the P.F.A Act. 2. After the petitioner entered appearance, the petitioner filed an application to send the sample of food for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A Act. That application was dismissed by the impugned Crl.M.C. No.3425 of 2008 2 order. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 3. The question is whether the petitioner has a right to get the sample analysed under Section 13(2) Cr.P.C. He is admittedly not the vendor. His name, it would appear, was not revealed under Section 14 A of the P.F.A Act. Whether his name is liable to be revealed at all under Section 14 A of the P.F.A Act is a matter of dispute before me now. Under Section 14 A of the P.F.A Act, the offender is bound to disclose the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he purchased the article of food. The offender did not obviously purchase the article of food from the petitioner directly. He purchased it only from the 3rd accused. The 3rd accused has already been given the right under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A Act though he did not avail of it. There is dispute as to whether the manufacturer has a right to get the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A Act. 4. That controversy apart, I am satisfied that at present the request of the petitioner, to get his food sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, can be granted. At any rate, accused 1 to 3 have such right, though they have not exercised Crl.M.C. No.3425 of 2008 3 the right in due time. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that without prejudice to all contentions of both sides, there can be a direction to the Magistrate to forward the sample of food to the Central Food Laboratory for report under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A Act. I make it clear that even if it were found that the sample which was purchased on 28.09.05 and which as per the label was manufactured in 6/2005, were found to be not fit for analysis, no benefit can straight away be conceded to the petitioner on the basis of this order and it will have to be considered at the appropriate stage whether the petitioner does at all have a right under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A Act. Only if he has such a right, can it be held that frustration of that right would entitle him to any benefit or advantage. 5. In these circumstances, without expressing any final opinion on the question whether the petitioner has any legal right to get the sample examined under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A Act, holding that at least the other accused can be held to have such a right, notwithstanding the fact that they have not exercised such right in due time, I am satisfied that the input of a report from the Central Food Laboratory can be availed if the same can be rendered by the Central Food Laboratory. Crl.M.C. No.3425 of 2008 4 6. In these circumstances without prejudice to the contention of either side, I am satisfied that direction can be issued to the learned Magistrate to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for examination and report. 7. This Crl.M.C is allowed to the above extent. 8. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner forthwith. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-