SEBASTIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is moved by one Sebastian, who is the first accused in S .T. No. 70 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class No. 1, Cherthala to give a direction to the said Magistrate to evaluate the evidence already recorded and dispose of the case against him on merit. To appreciate the contentions of both the sides the common facts as well as the rival submissions of both the sides can be narrated hereunder. The present petitioner's wife by name Josephine was owning a grocery shop bearing No. 635 in Ward No. VIII of Cherthala South Panchayat, in which the present petitioner being the husband of the owner had been doing the business. Admittedly, the wife who was the second accused is now no more and at the time of launching the present criminal prosecution she was away from India. On 7.1.1992 at about 10 a.m. the second respondent, who is the Circle Inspector of Food, Cherthala Circle inspected the above shop. At the time he purchased 375 kilograms of gingelly oil on payment of Rs. 15 and Ps. 70, for which Ext. P3 voucher was issued by the petitioner. The second respondent divided the gingelly oil into three equal parts, packed them and sealed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thereafter he sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst with the Memorandum in Form No. VII and two other samples he sent to the Local Health Authority. The present petitioner / accused at the time of purchase, by the second respondent, disclosed that he originally purchased gingelly oil from the third respondent herein by name P.X. Joseph & Sons, Merchants and Commission Agents, Muttom Bazar, Cherthala. On account of the disclosure by the petitioner a copy of the Form VI notice was served to the third respondent, for which they sent a reply marked as Ext. P15. Then PW 1, second respondent herein, filed a complaint under S.2 (ia) (m), 7 (i) and l6 (l) (a) (i)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with item A17-11 of Appendix - B to R.5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

(2.) On receipt of the summons, the present petitioner first accused appeared before the Magistrate. However, the summons sent to his wife (second accused) who was then abroad, returned, unserved and therefore, the case against the present petitioner was split up and trial commenced.

(3.) In the trial the present second respondent as PW. 1 was examined and Ext. P1 to 18 and Ext. Dl were marked. After the evidence was closed, the case was posted for 10 times for arguments and finally the arguments were heard and the judgment was reserved. Then the Magistrate took a pretty long time for pronouncing the judgment. And on 23.12.1994, he passed an order for de novo trial on impleading the third respondent as third accused as per the provisions provided in S.20 A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act) read with S.319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.