IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3571 of 2005(B) --------------------------------- ST.205/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 : ------------------------------------ M.VADIVEL, S/O.MURUGAIYAN, T.S.NO.1255, NORTH 3RD STREET, PUDUKKOTTAI. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.M.K.SUMOD RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE : --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE FOOD INSPECTOR, MAVELIKARA CIRCLE, MAVELIKARA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL FOOD LABORATORY, PUNE. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLICC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, ADDL.CGSC - R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.NO.3571/2005 ORDER ON CRL.M.APPLN.NO.12999/2005 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3571/2005 DISMISSED 22.08.2008 SD/-, V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3571 OF 2005 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 O R D E R The second accused in S.T.No.205/04 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam is the petitioner herein. In the complaint, the allegation against the petitioner as well as two other accused was that the first accused sold adulterated supari (Nizam), the second and third accused manufactured and sold adulterated supari (Nizam) and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 2(ia)(a), 7(i), 7(v) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”). 2. The petitioner seeks an order quashing Annexure A1 complaint and the case instituted thereon. The first ground is that the article supari (Nizam) mentioned in Annexure A1 and Annexure A2 report is not an article of “food” which comes within the definition of section 2(v) of the Act. The second ground is that Annexure A3 report issued by the second respondent supercedes Annexure A2 report. It is the further case of the Crl.M.C.3571 of 2005 2 petitioner that if the above two reports are compared, it will show that the quantity of sodium saccharin described in Annexure A3 was 39010.6 parts per million and the same is improbable and not believable. Therefore, if the trial is allowed to continue on the basis of Annexure A3, it would be resulted in serious hardships and prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore it is prayed that Annexure A1 complaint and S.T.No.205/04, instituted thereon may be quashed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the first respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Pyarali K. Tejani Vs. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and others [AIR 1974 SC 228] and the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P.Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others [2004 (7) SCC 68], supari would come within the definition of food as contained in Section 2(v) of the Act. Therefore the first contention taken in this Crl.M.C. is not sustainable. The counsel further pointed out that Annexure A2 Crl.M.C.3571 of 2005 3 and Annexure A3 would refer with the quantity of Sodium Saccharin and it will cause hardship to the petitioner. The correctness of the opinion given in Annexure A2 and Annexure A3 to be testified during the trial and no conclusion can be arrived in a proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage. Therefore it is only proper for the petitioner to raise his defence regarding these two chemical analysis report before the trial court during the trial. This court is not proposed to interfere with the complaint in the light of above discussions and reasons. All the contentions raised in this petition can be raised at the time of the trial and with the above observation this petition is dismissed. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but subject to the above observations. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pac