IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 64 of 2011() ----------------------- ST.461/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE , CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 6: ------------------------------ 1. PHILIP CHERIAN, CHERUKARA HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. C.J.CHERIAN, CHERUKARA HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. MATHEW CHERIAN, CHERUKARA HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. JOSEPH CHERIAN, CHERUKARA HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101. 5. RIJU NINAN, PLAVELIKKADAVIL HOUSE, ICO JUNCTION, CHANGANACHERRY. 6. AJUMON P.BABY, PALLIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, M/S.JAIMATHA ESTATE, MONIPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SHRI P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 101. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K. FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.64 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in S.T.No.461 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanacherry, initiated on a complaint preferred by respondent No.2, Food Inspector for various offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules (for short, “the Act and Rules”) for alleged sale of vinegar which did not conform to the prescribed standard. Prosecution was launched on the strength of report of the Public Analyst (Annexure-A1). Later, one of the remaining sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) for examination who according to the petitioners by Annexure-A4, certificate has concluded that the sample conformed to the standards for brewed vinegar as per the Act and Rules. Learned counsel contends that under Section 13(3) of the Act certificate issued by CFL would supersede the report given by the Public Analyst and hence no offence is made out against petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 2. If the report submitted by the CFL as contended by learned counsel reveals that no offence is made out, court below is bound to drop the proceedings or discharge petitioners as provided under law. Proper course open to the petitioners is to approach learned Magistrate requesting to drop the Crl.M.C.No.64/2011 2 proceedings or discharge them as provided under law instead of filing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. Without prejudice to that right of petitioners this petition is closed. Crl.M.A.No.151 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks