OMPRAKASH SHIVPRAKASH Vs. K I KURIAKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sixth accused in C.C. No. 755 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrates Court - I, Ernakulam has filed this M.C. to quash Annexure-C order passed by the Magistrate and entire proceedings initiated against him.

(2.) On the basis of Annexure A1 complaint, filed by the Food Inspector, Corporation of Cochin, Ernakulam accused 1 to 5 who are the respondents 2 to 6 herein, were standing trial for the offences punishable under S.2(ia), (h), (i), 7(i) and 7(v) read with S.16(1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and R.44A and R.80 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The allegation made in the complaint is that the Toor dhall was purchased by the complainant from the first accused exposed and exhibited by him for sale to public for the purposes of analysis and after analysis the same was found to be adulterated. The first accused informed the Food Inspector that he purchased the food article from the second accused as per Bill No. 5197 dated 26.6.1995. The second accused is a partnership firm and third accused is the Managing Partner, who is in charge of the business of the firm. As the second accused informed that they purchased the food article in question, from the fourth accused firm, as per bill No. 40978, dated 27.5.95, the fourth accused firm and the fifth accused, its Managing Partner were implicated. Even though it is stated in the mahazar prepared by the Food Inspector as well as in Annexure A1 complaint that it was inscribed in Hindi on the sack wherefrom the sample was taken the name as Omprakash Sivaprakash, MITCH, Phase 3, Plot No. AKOLA and also brand name as 24 CARAT COLBRAND, the Food Inspector did not implicate him as an accused stating that the other accused did not indicate whether the above name holder is a licensed manufacturer and the details such as, whether it is having a valid PFA licence etc., or whether it is a proprietary concern, firm or a company, etc.

(3.) After they appeared before the court, the fifth accused filed a petition before the court under S.19 of the Food Adulteration Act and under S.319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to implead the petitioner herein, as an accused in the case. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 23.1.1998 allowed the petitioner to be impleaded as an accused in this case and directed to issue summons to him. Hence the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court to quash the order passed by the Magistrate and the entire proceedings initiated against him.