Kerala High Court
Choice Canning Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs K.S. Ramachandran on 3 April, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1988CRILJ243
ORDER S. Padmanabhan, J.
1. Accused persons claiming themselves belonging to the 'affluent higher strata' in society generally go under the impression that the forums for bringing offenders to justice are intended only for the 'ordinary citizens' and it is below their dignity to appear as accused before criminal courts. The short-cut adopted for that purpose is resort to the inherent powers of this Court. That is what the petitioners have done in this case also.
2. Petitioners were prosecuted by the respondent in C.C. 20 of 1987 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Respondent (complainant) is the Deputy Director of the Export Inspection Agency, Cochin authorised to file complaints under The Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963. First petitioner is a registered firm engaged in processing and export of fish and fishery products and second petitioner is the partner in charge of the business. The complaint was filed for an offence punishable under Section 11(3) of the said Act for having violated Rule 3A(9)(b) of the Rules contained in the Notification issued under the Authority of Section 17 of the Act.
3. Advocate Shri K. S. Rajamony, appearing for the petitioners raised two contentions. They are (1) The allegations in the complaint do not constitute any offence and (2) If the case is allowed to be tried it will affect the reputation and thereby the business of the firm. In support of the first contention it was argued that the allegations are too vague and it is not specified which provision of the rules contained, in the Notification was offended. So also it was contended that even if there is any violation as alleged it is sufficient only to withhold approval for export of the product and no offence is involved. According to the counsel there could be an offence under the Act and Rules only if some product is exported in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules.
4. I do not think that there is any merit in this contention. Section 17 of the Act authorises the Government to make rules by notification in the Official Gazette in order to carry out the purposes of the Act. There was no contention that the Rules are beyond the powers conferred under the Act or they are in any way invalid or inapplicable. Rule 3A(9)(b) provides that if the water used for processing is from sources other than a protected water supply scheme, a certificate of portability of I the same from the agency or other institutions approved by the agency shall be produced. Rule 3A(9)(a) says that there shall be plentiful supply of potable water free from harmful chemical and bacteria. Section 11(3) of the Act says that if any person contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of any other provisions of the Act or any Rules or Orders made thereunder, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. There cannot be any dispute that the violation alleged in the complaint, if true, is an offence punishable under Section 11(3). Other contraventions are made punishable under the other provisions of Section 11.
5. In a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this Court is not expected to consider the factual correctness of the allegations in the complaint regarding commissions or omissions which constitute the offence. That is for the court trying the case to consider. This Court can only consider whether the allegations, if taken as true, will constitute the offence. I do not find any merit in the arguments that the allegations are vague or that they do not constitute any specific offence. The counsel was not justified in his argument that there is only a vague allegation of the contravention of the rules generally without specifying the particular contravention and that even the alleged contraventions do not constitute any offence.
6. It is specifically alleged that the Technical Officer drew samples from raw- material process stage material, water, ice and swabs from the table top, utensils, freezer trays and worker's hand on 21-10-1986 and on analysis ice samples were found Contaminated with vibrio cholerae organism. The bacteriological report prepared by the Technical Officer was also enclosed with the complaint. On 14-11-1986 samples from finished product were drawn from the day's production on which also vibrio cholerae organisms were noticed on the sample of ice. Samples of PUD Prawns were also found with vibrio cholerae organism. The laboratory report was also produced along with the complaint. There is specific allegation that Rule 3A(9)(b) was violated. Though the other specific rules are not mentioned the allegation include violation of other rules also.
7. The Act and Rules are intended not only to preserve the country's reputation in foreign markets and thereby accelerate export and foreign exchange, but also to safeguard the life and health of the possible consumers. The safeguards provided, the expenses incurred in establishing a machinery for that purpose and the penal provisions incorporated are all with these objects in view. Persons dealing in business connected with the matters dealt with in the Act and Rules are bound to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Act and Rules. Any violation has to be sternly dealt with on account of the objects and purposes and the results intended to be achieved.
8. If the allegations do constitute an offence or offences for violation of any of the provisions, the mere omission to mention the particular provision that is contravened cannot stand in the way of the court taking cognizance of the offence and proceeding against the offender. The court can find out from the allegations which penal provision is contravened. If such contaminated stuff happen to be exported that is likely to affect the life and health of the consumers for whom they are intended. Not only the particular exporter but others dealing in the same business are thereby liable to suffer loss of reputation in the foreign market which will considerably affect their business and income. That will in turn affect the reputation and image of our country and the valuable foreign exchange also will be lost. It is not actual export in violation of the Act and Rules that alone is made an offence. The mere possibility of the contraventions being found out and export prevented by the vigil of the concerned officers is no reason to exonerate the offenders especially when the contraventions themselves without anything more are made penal.
9. If actually the petitioners are liable for the contraventions it is no concern in an attempt to bring them to justice whether the prosecution will affect their reputation or trade. Those are consequences which they invite in an attempt to enrich themselves at the expense of the life and health of the consumers and at the risk of the country's reputation and resources. No accused is entitled to plead the possible risk to his reputation or business or income as a defence to a prosecution for having committed an offence. That is not an aspect involving abuse of the process of court, illegality or prejudice justifying interference under the inherent powers. Resort to Section 482 of the Code in this case is evidently a conscious attempt to abuse the process of court. The accused will have to stand their trial.
The petition is therefore dismissed.