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