IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 866 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.396/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.3 --------------------------- P.S.FRANCIS, S/O. SKARIA, PARACKAL HOUSE, KODUVAGANGA, NERIKODE P.O., ALANGADU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.WILSON JOSE SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. SRI.NOEL JOSEPH SRI.M.B.SANDEEP SMT.P.T.RAZEENA SRI.K.V.REJANISH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. V.N.ASOKAN, FOOD INSPECTOR, CHALAKUDY CIRCLE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR, PIN-680 307, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.866 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is third accused in C.C.No.396 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy for offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules. He was implicated in the case in his alleged capacity as nominee of accused No.4, manufacturer of the food article in question. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the contention that it is based on a legal fiction that he is the nominee of the manufacturer that he impleaded but materials on record would show that he is not the nominee. Instead, he joined the company as its driver. He claims to be an illiterate person not likely to put in a managerial capacity and as nominee of the company. He claimed to have resigned from the company even before the Food Inspector is said to have collected the sample. Reliance is placed on Annexures-A2 to 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondents. 2. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the Annexures produced. Annexure-A2 is a copy of notice issued on behalf of petitioner to the Director of Health Services stating that petitioner is not the nominee of accused No.4. Annexure-A3 is a letter from the District Food Inspector to accused No.4, referring to the contention petitioner had urged in Annexure-A2, notice and Crl.MC No.866/2011 2 seeking response of accused No.4 to the said contention. Petitioner placed reliance on Annexures-A4 and A5 to contend that he is not the nominee of accused No.4. Learned counsel contended that while petitioner met with an accident, officials of accused No.4 managed to get a vakalath signed by him and that was made use of in C.C.No.396 of 2007. Learned counsel made a fervent plea to invoke the supervisory power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) to quash proceeding against petitioner. 3. What is raised before me is a dispute on a question of fact as to whether petitioner is the nominee of accused No.4. I am of the opinion that it is not a matter which this Court could decide under Section 482 of the Code inspite of petitioner producing Annexures-A2 to A5. Whether, in view of the said document, contention of petitioner that he is not the nominee could be accepted or not has to be decided by the trial court. I therefore, find no reason to entertain this petition. 4. Learned counsel submitted that a warrant of arrest is pending against petitioner. I am inclined to grant time to him to appear in the trial court and seek regular bail. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. But, petitioner is granted three weeks time from this day to appear in the trial court and seek regular bail. If any such application is preferred learned Magistrate shall consider the same and Crl.MC No.866/2011 3 pass appropriate orders bearing in mind that case is already taken on file and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Warrant of arrest issued to petitioner will stand in abeyance during the said period of three weeks or till petitioner surrenders in the trial court whichever is earlier. Question whether petitioner is the nominee of accused No.4 is to be decided by the trial court untrammelled by the observations contained in this order. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks