IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2214 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/11/2008 IN CMP. 2648 /2008 IN CC.324/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- ANIL CHERIAN, MANAGER, HOTEL LUCIA, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER & STATE ----------------------------------------- 1. C.L.DILEEP, FOOD INSPECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2214 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 09th day of July 2009 ORDER Public prosecutor appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Heard. This revision is in challenge of order dated 19-11-08 on C.M.P.No.2648 in C.C.No.324 of 2001 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Trivandrum. Petitioner along with others is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Secs. 2(1)(a), 7(1)(v), 16(1)a(i), 17(1)(2) and Rule 5 Appendix B.A.32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.2648 of 2008 seeking his discharge even before pre-charge was recorded. Learned magistrate refused and dismissed that petition. According to learned counsel petitioner is entitled to a discharge. 3. It is seen that the case was instituted in the year 2001 and as per the submission of learned counsel, petitioner had appeared in the court below in the year 2001. Case is pending since 2001 onwards and it in 2008 that petitioner has requested for his discharge even before evidence under Sec.244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) is recorded. I do not find reason to interfere with the order at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to request for discharge after evidence under Sec.244 of the Code is recorded, if circumstances enabled him to make such as such. It is made clear Crl.R.P.No.2214 of 2009 2 that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all his contention in the court below after evidence under Sec.244 of the Code is recorded. With the above direction, this revision is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/