RADHESHYAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in all these petitions is the same person and these petitions are filed to quash the prosecution proceedings launched against the petitioner as manufacturer, on the basis of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector alleging offences punishable under S.2(ia)(a), (ix)(c), 7(ii), 16(1)(a)(i) & 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and R.5 Appendix B.A. 17.07 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

(2.) Crl.M.C. No. 3517/97 is filed to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. 132/95 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ambalapuzha against the petitioner. Crl.M.C. No. 256/98 is filed to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.491/95 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Karunagappally against the petitioner. Crl. M.C. No. 1526/98 is filed to quash the entire proceedings in S.T.No. 40/95 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kottayam. Since the contentions raised in all these petitions are identical, they are heard and disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The Food Inspectors of Haripad Circle, Karunagappally Circle and the Kottayam Municipality filed the respective complaints alleging offences punishable under S.2(ia)(a), (ix)(c), 7(ii), 16(1)(a)(i) & 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and R.5 Appendix B.A. 17.07 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules alleging that the olive oil purchased by them from the respective sellers, manufactured and marketed by the petitioner herein, for the purpose of analysis was found to be adulterated and therefore, the petitioner who is the manufacturer of that food article is liable for the offences alleged in these cases.