IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 614 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------- CC.324/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM ..................................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SAJAN K. VARGHESE,S/O. K.V. VARHGESE, KANJIRAKATTU VEEDU, PUTHANANGADI, KOTTAYAM. 2. ALEYAMMA VARGHESE, W/O. K.V. VARHGESE, KANJIRAKATTU VEEDU, PUTHANANGADI, KOTTAYAM. 3. REJI K. VARGHESE, S/O. K.V. VARGHESE, KANJIRAKATTU VEEDU, PUTHANANGADI, KOTTAYAM. BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. C.L. DILEEP. FOOD INSPECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.VINOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.614 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are accused 3, 4 and 6 in C.C.No. 324/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case as against them contending that as per Annexure-A complaint, second petitioner is the licencee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and hence, proceedings as against the petitioners will not lie. It is also contended that as is clear from Anenxure-H report of Public Analyst, copy of the report was forwarded by the Local Health Authority only on 10.8.2001, after the expiry of the period fixed for the mineral water and in such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of process of the court and is to be quashed. CRMC 614/09 2 2. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that first accused had earlier filed Crl.M.C.No. 1427/2002, which was disposed by this Court on 20.2.2008, directing first accused to approach the Magistrate and directing the Magistrate to consider the question as a preliminary point and permitting the first accused to urge all the contentions before the trial court. It is pointed out that in such circumstances, petitioners are also to be directed to raise all the contentions before the Magistrate. 3. I find force in the submission. When the first accused approached this Court to quash the proceedings, this Court refused to hear the petition on merits and instead, directed the first accused to raise all the contentions before the Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to consider the question as a preliminary point. In such circumstances, it is only just and proper to direct the petitioners herein also to adopt the same CRMC 614/09 3 course. Petition is disposed permitting the petitioners to raise all the contentions urged herein and seek an order of discharge from the concerned Magistrate. Petitioners are permitted to file a petition and on filing a petition, Magistrate is directed to hear the question on merits and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Petitioners are also permitted to file a petition to dispense with their presence, for the purpose of filing the petition as well as for hearing the same, in which case, they are to be permitted. 31st July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv