IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No.2861 of 2004 (C) -------------------------------- ST.6/1995 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/FIRST ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- * K.I.ISMAIL, S/O.IBRAHIM RAWTHER, PALLIMUKKIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI *[THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS “K.I.JAMAL” AS PER ORDER DT.15/11/04 IN CRL.M.A.13145/04] RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ---------------------------------------------- 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, MOBILE VIGILANCE SQUAD, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. M.C No.2861 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in S.T.6/95 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thodupuzha for offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He is the vendor of the commodity stated to be purchased under Annexure-3 bill from N.S Agencies of which accused 4 and 5 are the manufacturers. The prayer in this Crl.M.C is to quash Annexure-2 complaint on the basis of which is the case taken cognizance of by the Chief Judicial Magistrate registering it as S.T.6/95. 2. The only argument that is advanced before me by the counsel for the petitioner at the time when the matter came up for final hearing is seeking for a direction being given to the court below to consider whether Crl. M.C No.2861 of 2004 -2- protection is available to the petitioner/ vendor under Section 19(2) of the Act before proceeding under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act. The argument is advanced relying on the decision of the Apex Court in S.S.Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi (1981) 3 SCC 431) that where food article is sold in a sealed container bearing manufacturer's warranty as to quality as required under Rule 12A of the Rules, protection available to the vendor under Section 19(2) must first be determined before proceeding under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the P.F.A Act. 3. In the result, I dispose of this Crl.M.C directing the court below to consider whether protection is available to the petitioner/vendor under Section 19(2) of the Act if in case the food article is one sold in sealed container bearing manufactures warranty as to quality as required under Rule 12-A of Crl. M.C No.2861 of 2004 -3- the Rules before proceeding under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the P.F.A Act. The court below shall dispose of the case as early as possible considering the fact that the case is one of the year, 1995. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-