IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3312 of 2010(B) -------------------------------- ST.32/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------ SIBI THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS, KARAKKATTU HOUSE, THOPRAMKUDI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN SRI.E.A.THANKAPPAN SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.S.SREEKUMAR(NORTH PARAVUR) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINTS ------------------------------------ 1. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, DEVIKULAM CIRCLE, DEVEIKULAM P.O.,IDUKKI DISTRICT-PIN-685613 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3312 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the second accused in S.T.No. 32/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adimaly, originally filed C.M.P.No.2841/2008 to implead the manufacturer under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act contending that the tea dust taken as sample by the Food Inspector was purchased by him in bulk from M/s.Red Land Tea, the manufacturer and hence, the manufacturer is to be impleaded as an accused under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. By Annexure-VI order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. Subsequently, after evidence was recorded, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1454/2010 reiterating the same contentions seeking the same relief. By Annexure-XII order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that allowing the petition would amount to CRMC 3312/10 2 reviewing Annexure-VI order. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-VI and Annexure-XII orders contending that learned Magistrate should have found that subsequent to Annexure-VI order, evidence was let in to the effect that the manufacturer, sought to be impleaded, is having a licence and petitioner has produced the bill by which the tea dust was purchased in bulk and hence, the manufacturer should have been impleaded as an accused under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Learned counsel argued that though petitioner purchased the tea dust in bulk, there is no allegation by the prosecution that petitioner added anything in it before packing and hence, the manufacturer should have been impleaded. 2. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-VI or Anneuxre- XII orders. Even, according to the petitioner, the tea dust was being sold by him not in the same CRMC 3312/10 3 condition as he has purchased it. It is his case that he has purchased the tea dust in bulk and is being sold by preparing separate packets. In such circumstances, as it cannot be claimed that petitioner has sold the food article in the same condition in which he has purchased it, I find no reason to interfere with the order refusing to exercise the power under Section 20A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Petition is dismissed. 31st August, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv