IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 876 of 2006() ------------------------ CC.107/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.14: --------------------------------- M/S. KODANADARAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., ANGAMALY (S), ERNAKULAM DIST., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, A.M. YAHIYA, KODANADARAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------- 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, MOOVATTUPUZHA CIRCLE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKEN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.1397/06 IN CRL.M.C.NO.876/06 //DISMISSED// 13.1.09 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.876 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner herein is the 14th accused in C.C.No.107/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Muvattupuzha registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the first respondent herein for an offence punishable under Section 16 (1-A)(i) read with Section 2(ia)(f) and 7(i)(v)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to set aside the orders in Annexures-V and VI and to allow the prayers in those petitions. 2. Annexure-V is the petition filed by the petitioner on 16- 2-2006 before the lower court under Section 13(2) of the P.F.A.Act, which is numbered as C.M.P.No.223/2006, in which the prayer was made for reanalysis of the sample wherein the learned Magistrate has passed an order on 16-2-2006 which reads as follows: “Not legible. Hence returned.” Thereafter the petitioner has filed another written copy of the same petition, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is CRL.M.C.No. 876/06 -2- a certified copy and the same was also returned by the learned Magistrate as revealed from the order dated 20.2.2006 in C.M.P.No.246/06, produced as Annexure VI. The order dated 20.2.2006 reads as follows: “Not legible. Hence returned after affixing court seal on every page.” 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders dated 16.2.2006 and 20.2.2006 in C.M.P.No.223/06 and C.M.P.No.246/06 are unjustifiable, illegal and opposed to the principles of law contained in Rule 27 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and therefore, those orders are liable to be set aside by this Court. 5. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has not complied with the order in C.M.P.No.223/06 passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, there is no defect or illegality in the order dated 20.2.2006 in C.M.P.No.246/06. 6. It is revealed from the order dated 16.2.2006 in C.M.P.No.223/06 that the petition filed under section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was returned by the learned Magistrate, for the reason that the petition was not legible. No specific condition has been CRL.M.C.No. 876/06 -3- stated by the learned Magistrate. It may be for that reason, the petitioner has again filed another petition as C.M.P.No.246/06 which was also hand written and the same order has been passed again by the learned Magistrate. 7. As per Section 27 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, all petitions presented before a court shall be in English or in the language of the court and shall be written legibly in ink or type written or printed legibly......... In the present case, the handwritten petition in ink was returned originally by the learned Magistrate for the reason that it was not legible. That defect noted by the learned Magistrate in C.M.P.No.223/06 dated 16.2.2006 can be cured by the petitioner by presenting a type written legible copy of the petition filed as Annexure V. Instead of that, another handwritten petition has been filed by the petitioner(wherein also a similar order has been passed by the learned Magistrate as revealed from Annexure VI, the order dated 20.2.2006 in C.M.P.No.246/06). So, to avoid confusion in the present case, this Court is disposing the present petition by directing the petitioner to produce a type written legible copy of the petition, Annexure V and to comply the direction of the learned Magistrate in that manner. With the above finding, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Comply the direction of this Court CRL.M.C.No. 876/06 -4- within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the petition within a week positively. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn