RAMAMORTHY Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent, Food Inspector, Thalassery, on 19.2.2003 took sample of vanaspati from shop bearing No.12/317 at Mambram in Vengad Grama Panchayat run by one Abdul Khader. When sent for analysis it was reported that the sample did not confirm to the standard prescribed by the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and hence it was adulterated. The prosecution was launched against the vendor as well as the distributor. It was revealed that the sample purchased by the first respondent was manufactured by SSD Oil Mills Company Ltd.The request of the first respondent to the said company to intimate the details regarding nominee under Section 17(2) of the Act was not heeded by the company authorities. Therefore, the first respondent got impleaded the Managing Director, who is the revision petitioner before this Court as the third accused.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed a petition as CMP.No.385/2008 purporting to be made under Section 227/245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order of discharge. It is with a plea that the company had appointed a nominee under Section 17(2)of the Act and that the nominee shall be impleaded as the third accused after discharging the revision petitioner. A photocopy of the Form No.VIII alleging to be as prescribed by the Rules under Act was also appended along with that petition. By the impugned order dated 15.10.2008 the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of that order, this revision petitioner was filed.

(3.) The learned Magistrate had given two reasons for dismissing the petition. The first reason stated is that the nomination form does not reveal the full address of the nominee and the area of his jurisdiction etc. The other reason is that though the petitioner was given an earlier opportunity, he had not availed that opportunity till he was impleaded under Section 20A of the Act.