IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 475 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.1019/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------ M.S. NISHAD, S/O. M.S.AZAD, AGED 40, AZAD PROCESSED FOODS, DOOR NO.20/1102, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE-673 003, RESIDING AT "SIRAJ NIVAS", P.O.KALLAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SRINATH GIRISH, MR.E. NARAYANAN.. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, KASARGOD CIRCLE, KASARGODE. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 475 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 3rd day of March,2010 ORDER Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.1019/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kasaragod taken cognizance for the offence under section 16(1) (a)(i) read with section 2(ia)(m) and Section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Prosecution case is that on 26.6.2008 at 2.30 p.m second respondent Food Inspector purchased green chilly sauce from B.M. Traders, Poinachi of Chemnad Grama Panchayat of Kasaragod Taluk after disclosing his identity and prepared three identical samples in the presence of the vendor and one such sample was sent to the public analyst and obtained Annexure III report, showing that the sample does not conform to the standards prescribed for chilly Crl.M.C.475/2010 2 under Appendix B A.16.28 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and therefore it is adulterated. It is based on Annexure III report, Annexure I complaint was filed. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. Petitioner on his appearance availed the remedy provided under section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and requested to send one of the remaining two samples kept at the Local Health Authority to Central Food Laboratory. It was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. Annexure II report was received from the Central Food Laboratory stating that the sample conforms to the standards of fruits and vegetable sauces, other than tomato and soya sauce i.e chilly sauce as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 2. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that as Annexure III report Crl.M.C.475/2010 3 is superseded by Annexure II report of the Central Food Laboratory and hence the continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of process of the court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure I complaint is filed based on Annexure III report received from the Public Analyst, which shows that the sample does not conform to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Annexure II report was furnished by the Central Food Laboratory on analysis of one of the sample sent under section 13(2B) from the court on an application filed by the petitioner under section 13(2A) of the Act. As rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as provided under section 13(3) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Crl.M.C.475/2010 4 Laboratory under section 13(2B) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. Under sub section 3 of Section 13 of the Act the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. Hence when Annexure III report is superseded by Annexure II report only Annexure II report can now be relied on. When Annexure II report establishes that the sample conforms to the standards prescribed under the Rules, continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of process of the court. Hence in the interest of justice, the case is to be quashed. Petition is allowed. C.C.1019/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006