IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2599 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.193/2006 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADIMALI .................... PETITIONERS:ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ------------------------------------------------ 1. S.GUNASEKHARAN, PONNAYYA BUILDING, KHAJANAPPARA, RAJAKUMARI, 2. M.NACHIYAPPAN, MANAGER (ADMN), SANTHI DEVI SPICES (P) LTD., 6-MAMARATHUPALAYAM, ERODE- 638 004. 3. M/S. SANTHI DEVI SPICES (P) LTD., 6-MAMARATHUPALAYAM, ERODE 638 004, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER (ADMN) M.NACHIYAPPAN. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BENNY JOSEPH, FOOD INSPECTOR, DEVIKULAM CIRCLE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2599 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment for offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioners allegedly sold a sample of curry powder. The Public Analyst analysed the same. He found that the sample does not conform to the standard fixed for curry powder under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Appendix B item A.05.21. The petitioners invoked their right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. The Central Food Laboratory submitted a report in which it was observed that the words “proprietory food” are displayed in the food article offered for sale which are misleading. Consequently it was found that the sample contravenes Rule 37 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. According to the petitioner, the prosecution is not liable to be continued. The same is liable to be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.No.2599/08 2 2. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the finding in the report of the Central Food Laboratory that curry powder is not a proprietory food is not correct and is not justified. Therefore proceedings are liable to be quashed, it is urged. What is proprietory food? The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to explain convincingly. Her submission that it is food which can be made by proprietor is to say the least unacceptable. A search of the relevant rules reveal that proprietory food is defined in Rule 37A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules to mean “food which has not been standardised by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955”. If that be so, it cannot be urged that curry powder for which standards have been prescribed in A.05.21 is an item of proprietory food. If an item of food which is not a proprietory food is described to be proprietory food on the label undoubtedly the allegation of violation of Rule 37 cannot be said to be unjustified. 3. I do not intend to express any final opinion on the disputed questions at this stage; but I must say that I am absolutely convinced that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the jurisdiction of this court Crl.M.C.No.2599/08 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to bring to premature termination the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 4. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate in the course of the trial. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.2599/08 4 (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.2599/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008