CHOICE CANNING CO LTD Vs. K S RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused persons claiming themselves belonging to the 'affluent higher strata' in society generally go under the impression that the forums for bringing offenders to justice are intended only for the 'ordinary citizens' and it is below their dignity to appear as accused before criminal courts. The short-cut adopted for that purpose is resort to the inherent powers of this Court. That is what the petitioners have done in this case also.

(2.) Petitioners were prosecuted by the respondent in C.C. 20 of 1987 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Respondent (complainant) is the Deputy Director of the Export Inspection Agency, Cochin authorised to file complaints under The Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963. First petitioner is a registered firm engaged in processing and export of fish and fishery products and second petitioner is the partner in charge of the business. The complaint was filed for an offence punishable under S. 11(3) of the said Act for having violated R. 3A(9)(b) of the Rules contained in the Notification issued under the Authority of S. 17 of the Act.

(3.) Advocate Shri K. S. Rajamony, appearing for the petitioners raised two contentions. They are (1) The allegations in the complaint do not constitute any offence and (2) If the case is allowed to be tried it will affect the reputation and thereby the business of the firm. In support of the first contention it was argued that the allegations are too vague and it is not specified which provision of the rules contained in the Notification was offended. So also it was contended that even if there is any violation as alleged it is sufficient only to withhold approval for export of the product and no offence is involved. According to the counsel there could be an offence under the Act and Rules only if some product is exported in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules.