Kerala High Court
Pepsico India Holding Pvt.Ltd vs Ajayakumar.S. The Foor Inspector on 30 November, 2006
Author: R.Basant
Bench: R.Basant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 1582 of 2006()
1. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING PVT.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AJAYAKUMAR.S. THE FOOR INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/11/2006
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO. 1582 OF 2006
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2006
ORDER
The petitioner is the 7th accused in a prosecution initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
2. The crux of the allegations is that the soft drink manufactured by the petitioner was found to be adulterated. The Public Analyst found that the sample was adulterated. The sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. The Central Food Laboratory reported that the article is not adulterated. According to the petitioner, since the decision in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala (1992(1) SCC 1) stands overruled by the decision in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004 (7) SCC 338), the learned Magistrate is not jurisdictionally competent to drop the proceedings and that is why the petitioner has come before this Court to invoke the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. It is the only course available to him in the light of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004 (7) SCC 338), submits counsel. CRL.M.C.NO. 1582 OF 2006 -: 2 :-
3. The learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram Shri Nandakumara Menon fairly submits that in the light of the report of the Central Food Laboratory, it is not open to the respondent now to canvass that the article is adulterated. The proceedings against the petitioner must, in these circumstances, come to an end. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can and ought to be invoked as explained in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004 (7) SCC 338).
4. In the result:
(a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.
(b) C.C.No.314/98 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in so far as it relates to the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge