A ESWARAMOORTHY Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners approach this Court with a prayer to call for the records in connection with S.T.C. No. 6 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli and to quash the same.

(2.) The case of the Petitioners is as follows:

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that the complaint has been filed on 27.08.2009, but, 13(2) notice has been issued only on 31.12.2009 and hence, the Petitioner's choice for sending the sample to the Public Analyst has been curtailed; moreover, there is no evidence to show that how and in what manner, the sample is misbranded; the complaint suffers from procedural illegality, because it has been filed after a lapse of 2 years from the date of receipt of Public analyst's report and thus he prayed for quashing the complaint in S.T.C. No. 6 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli. To substantiate his case, he lied upon the following decisions: