OM PRAKASH SHIVPRAKASH Vs. K I KURIAKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant is a firm. It has now been impleaded as the 6th accused in a prosecution case launched by the Food Inspector, Cochin Corporation, for the offence under Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"). Appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") to quash the order by which the appellant was impleaded as an accused in the criminal case. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition as per the order which is now being challenged before us.

(3.) The skeletal facts, for dealing with the questions raised, are these:Food Inspector of Cochin Corporation filed a complaint before a Judicial Magistrate Court at Ernakulam, against five persons shown as accused alleging that on 16-9-1995 another Food Inspector, who was attached to the mobile vigilance squad, had visited the business premises of the first accused and took sample of 750 grams of Toor Dhall and divided it into three parts as prescribed by the Rules; when one of the parts of the sample was analysed by the Public Analyst it was found not conforming to the standards prescribed for Toor Dhall and that it contained Kesari Dhal which is a prohibited substance. As the first accused told the Food Inspector that he purchased the article from second accused the Food Inspector sent a letter to the second accused (third accused is the Managing Partner of the second accused firm). In reply to the letter the third accused informed that he purchased the food article from the 4th accused firm (of which 5th accused is the person in charge of the business). Thus the Food Inspector has arrayed all the above five persons as accused in the complaint.