RAJANEESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition under S.482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (in short 'CrPC'). Petitioner was the 3rd accused in ST No. 516/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara. Since he abstained from Court, the case against him was split up and refiled as ST No. 3316/2007. Offences alleged against him along with other accused are under S.16(1)(a)(i) r/w S.7(1) and S.2(ia)(a) and R.50(1) Appendix B.A.18.03 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder. Gist of allegations in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector is the following:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Annexure 1 is the mahazar. Food Inspector has been examined as PW 1 before the Court below. She took samples of packets containing label 'kanjirava' after complying with the formalities under the Act and the Rules. Annexure 2 is the report of the public analyst. On the basis of Annexure 2, Annexure 3 complaint was lodged. It is seen from the averments in the complaint that proper packing and sealing of the article was done as prescribed. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with 4th accused were responsible for the business of the firm by name 'Season Traders', who allegedly manufactured the food article.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the judgment, Annexure 4. Learned Magistrate, after examining the documents produced before him and the evidence adduced at the time of trial, found that none of the accused was criminally liable for the alleged offences. Case against the petitioner and the 4th accused was specifically dealt with in paragraph 11 of the judgment. Petitioner submitted that case against 4th accused and himself stand on the same footing. They were implicated in the case as partners of the firm by name 'Season Traders'. No independent enquiry has been conducted by the Food Inspector to find out whether the petitioner along with 4th accused was a partner in the firm. No document was produced to fortify the contentions of the prosecution. For valid reasons the 4th accused, who stood trial with the same allegations as that against the petitioner, had been acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Appendix B.A.18.03 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 deals with Semolina (suji or rava). There is no contention for the prosecution that the article purchased by PW1 was suji or rava. The article was allegedly made of rice. Therefore, it is submitted by both sides that 'kanjirava' does not form part of the articles prescribed in the Act and the Rules. Considering the entire materials I find that no purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution.