MICRO CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS Vs. DINESHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner styling himself as a manufacturer of Pharmaceuticals, seeks a writ of mandamus to command the Food Inspector, Cochin Corporation 1st respondent, "not to press and to withdraw from the prosecution in C.C. 8/90, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam".

(2.) Petitioner would submit that the Food Inspector demanded illegal gratification from him, that he did not meet the demand, and that chagrined by this the Food Inspector fabricated a charge. When the writ petition came up for Rearing, I asked learned counsel for petitioner whether it was necessary to seek adjudication of these matters in proceedings under Art.226, as any expression of opinion (which cannot be avoided altogether) might atleast seemingly have, an impact at the trial. Learned counsel pressed for an adjudication.

(3.) Petitioner would say that he is manufacturing drugs under a licence, the product 'Oli-Oil' is a 'drug' and not a food item, and the Food Inspector has no jurisdiction whatever, to take a sample after the product was described as a drug by petitioner on an earlier occasion. Petitioner would also say that he complained against the alleged misdeeds of the Food Inspector, to three 'Vigilance Officers', whose names are not disclosed in the Original Petition. Incidentally the article was seized from 6th respondent a retailer and not petitioner. Petitioner produced a label of 'Oli-Oil' as Ext. P2.