C V CLEETUS Vs. K K ANILAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To my mind, this is an ideally fit case where the Court should refuse to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr. P. C even assuming that the petitioner has a good case to be urged in defence in the trial to be held before the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, he having allegedly sold Pan Parag (Gutkha ). The case was registered as early as in 2002 and there is no explanation as to why the petitioner has not chosen to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C all along. I am perfectly satisfied that this is a last minute attempt to avoid the obligation to get ready for trial. I am not in these circumstances satisfied that the extraordinary jurisdiction available to this court under Sec.482 Cr. P. C can or ought to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) This Crl. M. C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. However, I make it clear that the dismissal of this Crl. M. C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate in the course of the trial. Cr. M. C. dismissed.