MAMMOOTY Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are petitions filed under S.389 (alternatively under S.482) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), seeking release of the petitioners on bail to afford them time to "present appeal" and obtain orders from the Supreme Court. The learned single Judge before whom the petitions came up for consideration noticed the conflicting views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court regarding power of this Court to grant bail viz.. Abdulla Haji v. Food Inspector ( 1985 KLT 754 ) and Salim v. State of Kerala ( 1985 KLT 711 ) and referred the petitions for consideration by a Division Bench. Crl. M. P. 1145/85 came up before a Division Bench and the Bench referred the petition to a Full Bench and accordingly this Full Bench has been constituted. The other Crl. M.Ps. have also been placed before us.

(2.) Crl. M. P. 1115/85 arises in Crl. R. P. 80/82. The other petitions arise in Crl. Appeals. In Crl. R. P. 80/82, this Court declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence entered against petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Trial Court and confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. The Crl. Appeals were filed challenging the acquittal of the appellants therein by the courts of first instance. Crl. Appeals 153/82, 129/82, 292/82 and 293/82 relate to offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Crl. Appeal 32/82 relates to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. Crl. Appeal 157/82 relates to offences under Kerala Forest Act. Crl. Appeal 374/82 relates to offences under S.420, 468, 471 and 477A I.P.C. Crl. Appeal 188/82 relates to offences under S.450, 394 and 316 I.P.C. Some of the offences involved are bailable while others are non bailable. However, sentence of imprisonment imposed in these cases is for a period of less than three years. There is no dispute that the petitioners have no "right of appeal" to the Supreme Court under any provision of the Constitution or the Code. Oral application for certificate of leave under Art.134A made in Crl. Appeal 153/82 was rejected. No such application was made in any other case. However, petitioners submit that they intend to file special leave petition before the Supreme Court under Art.136 and as such they are persons who "intend to present appeal before the appellate court" as contemplated in S.389(3) of the Code. They seek order of bail under S.389(3) (or alternatively, in exercise of the inherent power of this Court under S.482) of the Code. Learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that neither of these provisions would enable this Court to grant bail at this stage.

(3.) S.389 of the Code reads as follows: