IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3189 of 2009 --------------------------------------- CC.409/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: K.V. MANOHARAN, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, KORATTY SOUTH P.O., CHALAKKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN SRI.E.A.THANKAPPAN SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.S.SREEKUMAR(NORTH PARAVUR) RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1. V.N. ASHOKAN, FOOR INSPECTOR, CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKKUDY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3189 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No. 409/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chalakudy. At the evidence stage, petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.6626/2009 for permission to examine an expert as the defence witness to establish that sample of coconut vinegar is likely to be deteriorated during the course of preservation and therefore, report of the Central Food Laboratory cannot be relied upon. By Annexure-VI order, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure to quash Annexure-VI order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that based on the CRMC 3189/09 2 conclusiveness of the report of the Central Food Laboratory, learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the petition and due to lapse of time and because of chemical acts, it is possible that the coconut vinegar had materially deteriorated and so, petitioner should have been granted opportunity to examine an expert. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with Annexure-VI order. Being an interlocutory order, petitioner is entitled to challenge Annexure-VI order along with the final order, if it goes against him. With that liberty, petition is dismissed. 12th October, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv