IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1031 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.328/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.UMMAR,S/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY,PAKKARATH HOUSE,P.O.MARUTHUR,PATTAMBI,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1031 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of April, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.328 of 2009 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam for offences punishable under Sec.2(ia)(j), 7(1) and 16(1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short, "the Act and Rules”) for alleged sale of adulterated banana chips. Petitioner was implicated in the case as salesman in the shop. The second accused was the licensee of the shop and third accused, manufacturer of the food article. Third accused died during pendancy of proceeding. The second accused faced trial in C.C.No.357 of 2004 and as per Annexure-A6, judgment he was acquitted granting him protection of Sec.19(2) of the Act. Petitioner who is said to be the salesman of the shop seeks benefit of Annexure-A6, judgment and requests to quash proceeding against him. Learned counsel submitted that since the licensee of the shop has been given protection of Sec.19(2) of the Act, petitioner who is alleged to be the salesman in that shop working under the licensee (second accused) is also entitled to the benefit of Annexure-A6, judgment. I have heard Crl.M.C.No. 1031 of 2011 -: 2 :- learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Annexure-A6, judgment is pronounced on April 30,2009. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the said judgment is not challenged by the Food Inspector or the State as the case may be. In paragraph7 of Annexure-A6, judgment, learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record found that the second accused (licensee of the shop) is entitled to the protection of Sec.19(2) of the Act and hence he is not liable to be convicted. If that be so, petitioner who is said to be the salesman of the shop employed by the second accused is also entitled to the benefit of that finding which I am told, has become final. In that situation, proceeding with the case against petitioner is of no use and would only a wasteful exercise. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Proceeding against petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.328 of 2009 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam will stand quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge