Kerala High Court
Sameerudheen E vs State Of Kerala
Author: B. Kemal Pasha
Bench: B.Kemal Pasha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2016/12TH CHAITHRA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 6000 of 2014 ()
---------------------------
CC 112/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, MANJERI
PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:
-------------------------
SAMEERUDHEEN E.,
ERANIYAN HOUSE, PANIKKARKUNDU, INDIANOOR P.O.,
KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.
2. THE FOOD INSPECTOR,
MANJERI CIRCLE, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676121.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DSV/2/4/16
Crl.MC.No. 6000 of 2014 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, MANJERI.
B COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2010 IN C.C.NO.211 OF
2005 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, MANJERI.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
NIL
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge
DSV/2/4/16
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
====================
CRL.M.C. No. 6000 of 2014
====================
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2016
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. What is under challenge is the validity of the analysis report of the food involved in C.C.No.112/2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri.
3. Relying on the decision reported in Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Food Inspector and another [2010(4) KLT 706(SC)], this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Food Inspector[2013(3) KLT 455] had held that the decision in Pepsico(supra) that the provisions under Section 23(1A)(ee) and (hh) of the Prevention of Food CRL.M.C.No. 6000 of 2014 -: 2 :- Adulteration Act are mandatory and the same are applicable to all the food items.
4. The question involved in this case is the non- compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 23(1A)(ee) and (hh) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As there was a divergent view in the matter, the decision in Gopalakrishnan(supra) along with the other decisions of the learned Single Judges were referred to the Division Bench. The Division Bench of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1814/2002 considered the said question and has disposed of the matter through order dated 17.11.2015 thereby upholding the view taken by this Court in Gopalakrishnan(supra).
5. Matters being so, the continued prosecution of the petitioner in C.C.No.112/2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri are illegal and no purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter any further. The matters involved in the said case are quite unnecessary in CRL.M.C.No. 6000 of 2014 -: 3 :- view of the decisions noted supra and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-A complaint on the basis of the analysis report and all further proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.112/2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.
DSV/1/4/16 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge