IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3792 of 2005() ------------------------- CC.187/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONERS: ACCUSED. 2 AND 3. -------------------------------- 1. V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SECRETARY, MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F. 1650, MUDNUR P.O. PALAKKAD. 2. MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIV EBANK LTD. NO.F.1650, MUNDUR P.O. PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.V.RAMAKRISHNAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT. ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, PALAKKAD CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------- Crl. M.C.NO. 3792 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010. ORDER Petition filed to quash Annexure A4 complaint. 2. The 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint before the Magistrate Court against accused four in number. The 1st accused is a Salesman of Mundur Service Co-operative Bank Sahakarana Maveli Store. Second accused the Secretary of said Bank (he is the petitioner herein). Third accused is the Mundur Service Co- operative Bank. The 4th accused is the person from whom the article was purchased as stated by the first accused. 3. The prosecution case is that on 25.1.2005 at about 12.30 p.m, the Food Inspector purchased 1500 gm. of Toor Dhal from a sealed sack which was kept for sale. It was purchased from the 1st accused, sampled was sealed in accordance with law and sent for analysis. On analysis, it was reported that it contained tetrasin. The Secretary of the Bank issued a letter to the Food Inspector strictly that the licence is in the name of Mundur Service Co- operative Bank Maveli Store. But the licence was not renewed and hence, the complaint is launched against all the four accused for commission of offences under Section 2(ia) (j), 7(i), 16(1-A)(i) Crl. M.C.NO. 3792 OF 2005 2 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Rules 5, Appendix B, A 18.06.09, 29 and 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only the Secretary of the Bank and he has no liability for the alleged offence . It is submitted that as per the allegation in the complaint itself, 4th accused is the person from whom the article was purchased. Therefore, in the light of a dictum laid on GANESHMAL JASHRAJ v GOVERNMENT OF GIJARAT AND ANOTHER 1980 (1) SCC 363 the petitioner may be exonerated from the criminal liability, it is submitted. It is also argued that as per Annexure A1 and A2 agreements between the commission agent and the Bank and as per clause 8 of the said agreement, all the stock of the store will be kept under the custody of the commission agent in its responsibility and commission agent alone will be answerable for all damages. It is also submitted that article was found in a sealed sack and the petitioner cannot be held liable for adulterating the article which is sold by the 4th accused. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that it cannot be said at this stage that the article was adulterated by 4th accused. Therefore, merely based on the submission that the article was purchased from Crl. M.C.NO. 3792 OF 2005 3 4th accused, the complaint cannot be quashed. It is also submitted that the petitioner taken up a defence under Section.19 of the Act and it has to be established by him. 6. On hearing both sides, and on going through the complaint,I find there is an allegation that petitioner is the licencee and a letter is seen sent to that effect by the Secretary of the Bank. There is an allegation in the complaint that licence was not renewed for the relevant period and hence an offence is committed under 50 of the Rules. In such circumstances, , complaint cannot be quashed. Only if allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence, a complaint can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, truth in the complaint or falsity of defence are not to be determined. Any way, I am not making any observations regarding the merits of the rival contentions raised in this case, since it is likely to affect all the parties. In the result, the petition is dismissed. K.HEMA,JUDGE. pm