The prayer in the above Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure-G order as well as Annexure-H complaint and all further proceedings in S.T.1279/2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate court-I, Thiruvalla. The above Crl.M.C. is filed at the instance of the accused in S.T.No.1279/2001.

2. The case of the petitioners can be summarized as follows:

The allegation against the petitioners is that on 20- 10-2000, the 1st respondent/complainant collected sample of Bengal Gram Flour from the shop of the 1st accused. In the complaint, the 1st accused is shown as the vendor, the 2nd accused is arrayed as the manufacturer and the 3rd accused as the distributor. After collecting the sample, the same was sent for chemical analysis and Annexure A report was obtained whereby it is opined that the sample contained 35.0 percent of Peas dhal starch. On the strength of the Annexure A report, the 1st respondent herein preferred Annexure B complaint against the petitioners/accused alleging offences punishable under sections 2 (ia)(m),7(i),16(1)(a)(i), read with Rule 5 Appendix B.A.18.04 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954. On the basis of Annexure B complaint, the court below took cognizance and process were issued to the accused/petitioners and on receiving summons, the 2nd accused made an application for sending the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for chemical analysis. In pursuance of the second analysis, Annexure D certificate was issued which belied the allegation of adulteration contained in Annexure A report. But in Annexure D certificate, it is opined that the sample was misbranded. According to it, with the month and year in capital letters up to which the product is best for consumption was not mentioned on the label and therefore, the sample was misbranded. It is the further case of the petitioners/accused that after Annexure D certificate, the complainant/Ist respondent filed a petition for amendment of the complaint to incorporate an offence under Rule 32

(g) and that petition was allowed by the court below as per Annexure G order overruling Annexure-F objection filed by the petitioners/accused. Therefore, Annexure-G order and Annexure H amended complaint are unsustainable in law. It is also the case of the petitioners that the recitals in Annexure-Comparative Citation: mahazar, a document relied on by the complainant, would show that the allegation regarding violation of Rule 32(g) is false. Thus the petitioners/accused challenge Annexure-G order and Annexure-H amended complaint in this proceedings.

3. I have heard Mr. T.A. Shaji, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor Sri Jai George.

4. Reiterating the contentions raised in the Crl.M.C., the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences mentioned in Annexure B complaint wherein, the allegation is that the sample taken from the 1st accused/vendor is adulterated and the said allegation is raised on the basis of Annexure A report by which it is opined that the sample contained about 35.0 percent Peas Dhal Starch. It was on the basis of the above factual allegation, the court took cognizance and decided to proceed against the petitioners/accused for the offences mentioned in Annexure B complaint. The learned counsel further submitted that when the second sample was sent for chemical analysis at the instance of the petitioners/accused, the Central Food Laboratory, as per its Annexure-D report, which is a document relied on by the prosecution/complainant, opined that the sample conforms to the standards of Besan (Bengal Gram Flour) laid down under Item No.A.18.04 of Appendix B of P.F.A.Rules (1955). The above opinion is diametrically opposed to Annexure A report of the Public Analyst, Government Analysts Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, on the basis of which Annexure B complaint was filed upon which the court took cognizance.