IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1427 of 2002 CC.324/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ANIL CHERIAN, MANAGER, HOTEL LUCIA, EAST FORT, TRIVANDRUM - 23. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: 1. C.L. DILEEP, FOOD INSPECTOR, TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON,SC FOR TVM.CORPN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON 20/02/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.1427 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of February 2008 ORDER Petitioner is stated to be the Manager of Hotel Lucia at East Fort in Trivandrum. He seeks to quash Annexure-A1 complaint filed by the respondent in his capacity as Food Inspector of Trivandrum Corporation. In Annexure-A1 complaint shows that petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.1. The other accused are stated to be the Licensee, General Manager, Managing Director, etc. of the company which is running the hotel in question. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that he is not liable to be prosecuted, in view of the provisions contained in Clause 2 of Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It is also contended by him that in view of the provisions contained in Clause 2 of Section 19 of the Act, his prosecution will be vitiated and illegal. It is the further case of the petitioner that the article in question, namely, Mineral Water was a product of a company owned by the Government of Pondichery. The hotel Crl.M.C.No.1427 OF 2002 :: 2 :: had purchased the mineral water under a written warranty issued by the manufacturer. Even assuming that the report of the public analyst is to be accepted and it has to be held that the mineral water did not conform to the standard prescribed under the Act and Rules, the manufacturer ought to have been arraigned as an accused in the complaint and accordingly prosecuted. 3. Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/complainant, submits that the above contentions that are being raised by the petitioner before this court ought to be urged by him before the trial court. It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel that Section 20A empowers the trial court to implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food during the trial of any offence under the Act, if the court is satisfied, on the evidence adduced before it, that such manufacturer, distributor or dealer is concerned with that offence. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that the defence Crl.M.C.No.1427 OF 2002 :: 3 :: available to the petitioner under Section 17(2) or 19(2) as the case may be, can be considered by the trial court in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. I find considerable force in the above contentions raised by the learned senior counsel. It will be open to the petitioner to urge all his contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage. If such a motion is made by the petitioner, the court below shall consider the same as a preliminary issue and take a decision thereon in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to be heard. Criminal M.C. is closed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.M.C.No.1427 OF 2002 :: 4 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.1427 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER Dated 20th Feb 2008