IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1631 of 2010() ------------------------- ST.127/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE PCA.79/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE CC.NO.767/2008 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- M.A.ADAM, S/O. UMMER, MUNDAM KANDY HOUSE, ERANHIKKAL P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, KOZHIKODE CIRCLE, ELATHUR PANCHAYAT, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH OCURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI. C.S. HRITWIK THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.RAMKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1631 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 ORDER Petitioner, who was the first accused in S.T.No.127/01 and whose case on account of his abscondance, was split up and refiled as C.C.No.767/08 on the file of C.J.M, Kozhikkode, seeks to quash Annexure A complaint alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 16(1) a (i) read with Section 2 (ia) (a) and (m) read with 7(i) of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act 1954 and the Prevention of food Adulteration Rules 1955. 2. According to the petitioner, the co-accused in the case were acquitted after a trial as per Annexure B judgment dated 31.1.2003 in S.T.No.127/2001. 3. The acquittal of the co-accused in a separate trial cannot be a ground to quash the complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the light of Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police 2006 (1) KLT 552. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was employed abroad and that was the reason for his absconding. Even though, after coming down to Kerala he surrendered before the Magistrate and was granted bail, now by Crl.M.C. No.1631 of 2010 : 2 : virtue of the compulsion of his employment abroad, he has to go back to his place of employment. If acquisition of identity does not arise, the petitioner may file an application for personal exemption and represention through his counsel during the trial of the case. In case, the petitioner files a proper application incorporating the appropriate averments before the learned Magistrate, the Magistrate shall grant personal exemption to the petitioner during the trial of C.C.No.767/2008. With this liberty, this Criminal M.C. is disposed of as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE dmb