ABOOBAKER ANJILLATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case was registered as early as in 1990. The petitioner was not available and the case against him was transferred to the list of long pending cases and the same is pending as l. P. C.16 of 1992. The petitioner has not appeared before the learned magistrate thereafter. Coercive processes have been initiated by the learned magistrate to secure the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner has, in these circumstances, come to this Court. He raises two pleas. First of all it is contended that the proceedings against him is liable to be quashed.

(2.) What is the reason The counsel submits that though the petitioner had sold a sample of peas, the report of the analyst shows that the article contained extraneous organic matters like rice and green gram. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not sell any article containing rice and green gram. It is, in these circumstances, submitted that the sample analysed by the analyst is not the sample drawn from the petitioner.

(3.) By looking into the contents of Annex.2, i. e. Ext. P13 report, such a ready conclusion cannot be drawn by this Court at this stage of the proceedings under Sec.482 Cr. P. C. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all his contentions, including the contention that the sample which was analysed by the expert is not the sample which was allegedly drawn from his premises. The plea for quashing of proceedings cannot obviously be succeeded, in these circumstances.