IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31334 of 2006(E)
1. PARANIKUMAR (NOMINEE),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. K.SEKHARAN, FOOD INSPECTOR,
3. K.J.JOSEPH, S/O.KURUVILA JOSEPH,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :28/01/2009
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.31334 OF 2006
----------------------------
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is one of the accused in C.C.No. 133/2005 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Ramankary.
C.M.P.No.1778/2005 was filed by the 2nd and 3rd accused seeking
an order to drop the proceedings in C.C.No.133/2005.
2. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P5 and
P6 orders. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the learned Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Ramankary in CMP.No.1778/2005. The
complainant-Food Inspector had initiated complaint against the
accused persons for the offence charged under Section 2(1)(a), 7
(1) and 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
alleging adulteration of iodized salt. Ext.P2 Complaint is
supported by Ext.P1 report of the Public Analyst stating that the
sample does not conform to the standards prescribed for iodized
salt under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and is
-2-
W.P.(C).No.31334/2006
therefore adulterated. At the request of the accused the 2nd
sample was sent for analysis to the Central Food laboratory,
Pune. In the 2nd report it is stated that there is no adulteration as
alleged in the charge. At the same time, the 2nd report shows that
there is violation of Rule 39 of the P.F.A. Rules, 1955. At the
time of passing Ext.P5 order, charge has been framed against the
accused persons on the basis of the first report and hence the
proceedings cannot be quashed. Prime facie there are no
materials for not proceeding against the accused persons.
Therefore, the dismissal of the C.M.P. No.1778/2005 by Ext.P5
order is validly made. The grounds urged for setting aside the
said order is not sustainable in law.
3. In the light of the report of the Central Food
Laboratory, Pune stating that there is no adulteration of iodized
salt, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
prosecution initiated on the basis of the report is unsustainable.
Therefore, the trial court shall consider the contention of the
-3-
W.P.(C).No.31334/2006
petitioner and take steps to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate, within a period of nine months from
today.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
kcv.
-4-
W.P.(C).No.31334/2006