Abdul Azeez K vs Food Inspector on 5 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2943 of 2008()



1. ABDUL AZEEZ K
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. FOOD INSPECTOR,CORPORATION OF CALICUT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :05/08/2008

 O R D E R
                         R. BASANT, J.
           -------------------------------------------------
                 Crl.M.C. No. 2943 of 2008
           -------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008

                              ORDER

The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under

the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. They are accused 2

and 3. Accused No.1 has already been tried, found not guilty

and acquitted. The petitioners were not available for trial

along with the 1st accused. Reckoning them as absconding

accused, coercive processes have been issued against the

petitioners by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners

apprehend imminent arrest in execution of such processes.

The 2nd accused is an individual and the 3rd accused is an

establishment represented by the 2nd accused.

2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely

innocent. Their absence earlier was not wilful or deliberate;

but was on account of reasons beyond their control. The

Crl.M.C. No. 2943 of 2008 -: 2 :-

petitioners, in these circumstances, want to surrender before the

learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. The petitioners

apprehend that their applications for regular bail may not be

considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance

with law and expeditiously. It is, in these circumstances, that

the petitioners have come to this Court for a direction to the

learned Magistrate to release them on bail when they appear

before the learned Magistrate.

3. It is for the petitioners to appear before the learned

Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate the

circumstances under which they could not earlier appear before

the learned Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the

learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners’

applications for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law

and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to

be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general

directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision

reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police

(2003 (1) KLT 339).

4. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed; but with the

observation that if the petitioners surrender before the learned

Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to

Crl.M.C. No. 2943 of 2008 -: 3 :-

the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate

must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and

expeditiously – on the date of surrender itself.

5. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for

the petitioners.

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/