NISHA K.C. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioners for accused Nos. 5 and 6 in S.T. No. 121/09 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram, pursuant to Annexure A2 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners are subsequently arrayed as additional accused Nos. 5 and 6 in S.T. No. 121/09 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nadapuram. The complaint was originally filed by the second respondent against accused Nos. 1 to 4 alone alleging offences under Section 16l(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) and Section 2(ia)m of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Appendix B -A -28.03 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. The prosecution allegation was that, on 22.10.2008 at about 1.00 p.m. the second respondent reached the premises of Rubiyan Super Training Centre, Nadapuram functioning in Room No. VII/1124 -A15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 in Nadapuram Grama Panchayat and purchased 1.5 kg of dates and after getting the public analyst report, it was found that, it does not confirm to the standard provided for the same and thereby they have committed the above said offence. Trial started and the present petitioners have been subsequently impleaded on the basis of alleged warranty claimed under Section 19(2) of the above said Act. The application is not sufficient to summon the petitioners. No notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued even to the original accused persons. So, the entire prosecution will not stand. So, they prayed for quashing the proceedings as against them.

(2.) HEARD the Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor who is appearing for the respondent. Called for a report from Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram before whom the case is pending and the learned magistrate sent a report regarding the things transpired up to the impleadment of present petitioners in the above case which reads as follows:

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the original accused have no case that they have not received any notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and they have not challenged the prosecution before any authority so far and they are facing trial. Further, the present petitioners have been impleaded subsequently on the basis of the evidence available invoking Section 20A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. So, there is nothing wrong in impleading the petitioners.