P. K. MADHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused Nos. 5 and 6 in a prosecution under S.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The complainant, Food Inspector, alleged that the first accused/vendor had sold the article of food viz. soft drink concentrate, to him on 12.3.1999. The said soft drink concentrate on analysis was found to be adulterated. Therefore, after observing the procedure prescribed by law, the complainant filed a complaint against six accused persons. The first accused is the vendor. Accused No. 4 is a firm, which distributed the soft drink concentrate to the 1st accused. 2nd accused is the Managing Partner and the 3rd accused is the Partner of the said 4th accused, distributor. The petitioners - A5 and A6 - are the nominees of the manufacturer and Manufacturer respectively of the food item - soft drink concentrate - purchased by the complainant from the first accused.

(3.) The petitioners have come to this court with the prayer that the prosecution against them may be quashed for the reason that the article of food sold by them is not adulterated even accepting the entire allegations raised in the complaint and the documents produced along' with the complaint.