George Antony vs Food Inspector on 1 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3041 of 2009()


1. GEORGE ANTONY, AGED 30 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.C.JOZE, AGED 44 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. FOOD INSPECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :01/10/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

              ------------------------------------------
               CRL.M.C.NO.3041 OF 2009
              ------------------------------------------

                Dated      1st October 2009


                           O R D E R

Petitioners are accused in C.C.408/2004 on

the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Chalakkudy. Petitioners are being tried for the

offences under Sections 2(ia) (a) (b) (m) 7(1) (v)

read with Section 16(1) (a) (i) (ii) of Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act. Petitioners sought to adduce

evidence against the report of Central Food Laboratory

which was dismissed under Annexure-IV order.

Petitioners thereafter filed Annexure-V petition to

re-call DW1 to put some more questions which are

originally objected by the prosecutor. Learned

Magistrate dismissed the petition as per order dated

10/8/2009. This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-IV order

and to allow Annexure-V petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing for

petitioners was heard.

3. Argument of the learned counsel is that

CRMC 3041/09
2

report of the Central Forensic Laboratory was received

seven months after the article was purchased by the

Food Inspector and in such circumstances, learned

Magistrate should have granted permission to let in

evidence to contradict the findings of the Central

Forensic Laboratory and in any case learned Magistrate

would be re-called DW1 to put the question which was

originally objected to.

4. On hearing the learned counsel, I find

no illegality or irregularity warranting interference

at this stage. Being interlocutory orders, petitioners

are entitled to challenge the order along with the

final orders. With that liberty petition is

dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.