IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 667 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.3/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED: -------------------------------- MUHAMMED SHAFI, KALIYILAZHIKATHU NETHAJI NAGAR, KILIKOLLUR P.O., KOLLAM-4. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS: ------------------------------------ 1. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, MOBILE VIGILANCE SQUAD, T.B.CENTRE CAMPUS, RED CROSS ROAD, TRIVANDRUM-35. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 667 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 3/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram, seeks to quash the proceedings before the Magistrate so far as they relate to the petitioner. 2. A private complaint was filed by the Food Inspector, Mobile Vigilance Squad, Thiruvananthapuram alleging an offence punishable under Section 16(1A) r/w Section 2(ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. According to the Food Inspector, he purchased 600 grams of ghee from the salesman namely the 1st accused in the mobile van of one KAYES Industry and after receipt of the report of the public analyst to the effect that the ghee was adulterated, the Food Inspector made enquiries regarding the licensee of KAYES Industry and the local Health Officer attached to the Kollam Municipal Corporation informed the Food Inspector that the licensee of the KAYES Agencies is the petitioner. According to the petitioner, proper enquiry should have been to find out the licensee of the KAYES Industry and not the KAYES Agency and the petitioner is not associated either with KAYES Industry or KAYES Agency and the CRL. M.C.NO. 667/2008 : 2: business of the petitioner is called KS Foods. The petitioner would contend that he has been wrongly arrayed as the 2nd accused in the case. 3. In as much as the petitioner has an effective and alternative remedy of moving the Magistrate, I am not inclined to entertain this Crl.M.C filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If the procedure followed by the Magistrate is warrant procedure, then he can certainly plead for a discharge. If on the other hand, the procedure followed by the Magistrate is summons procedure, then also he can plead for dropping the proceedings before the particulars of the offences are read over and explained to him by the Magistrate. In Kamala Rajaram v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 617), this Court has taken the view that in summons case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the Magistrate has the power to discontinue the proceedings at the stage of Section 251 Cr.P.C by invoking his power under Section 251 along with Section 258 Cr.P.C if there are no materials sufficient to proceed against the particular accused persons. Hence, reserving this right of the petitioner to move the Magistrate, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C.NO. 667/2008 : 3: