M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,- a beverages manufacturer and its Directors, face prosecutions before various courts in the State of Kerala. They have come to this Court with these Crl.M.Cs. with a prayer that the prosecutions launched against them may be quashed on various grounds raised by them invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.

2. To the skeletal facts first. Samples of carbonated beverages allegedly manufactured by M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., were purchased by the Food Inspectors at various centers in the State. They were sent to the Public Analysts. The Public Analysts analysed the Samples in these cases and reported that the samples of Carbonated beverages analysed by them were adulterated. They have furnished their opinion in the prescribed form. Thereupon, prosecutions were launched. It is important to straightway note that the option under Sec.13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) was not invoked by the indictees in all these cases. They have come up in challenge against the cognizance taken against them on various grounds.

3. At the outset it must be mentioned that the learned Public Prosecutor was requested to specify why and how it is said that the article is adulterated. The learned Public Prosecutor was also requested to specify the precise allegation as to how the samples of carbonated beverages can be said to be adulterated. The learned Public Prosecutor, after elaborate discussion at the Bar and after taking specific instructions, has stated categorically that the prosecution stands by the allegation in all these cases that the samples of carbonated beverages purchased were adulterated under Sec.2 (ia)(h) of the Act. The crux of the allegation now is only that the samples in question were found to contain pesticide residue – carbofuran carboryl etc., which render the articles injuries to health and consequently they are adulterated under Sec.2(ia)(h) of the Act. At the very outset I would like to not that there were certain other allegations raised when the hearing started; but, in the course of discussions, it is now stated unambiguously that the State wants to prosecute the indictees herein on the sole allegation that the samples of carbonated beverages purchased by the food Inspectors are adulterated under Sec.2(ia)(h) of the Act. I say so because initially it appears that there was confusion as to whether the articles can be said to be adulterated under Sec.2(ia)(1) or Sec.2 (ia)(m) of the Act or whether the Prosecution is for violation of Rules 65 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). In the light of the specifics stand taken by the learned Public Prosecutor it is not necessary for me to advert to those aspects in detail at all. The allegation now, I note is only that the articles are adulterated under Sec.2(ia)(h) of the Act.

4. It is unnecessary for me to specifically advert to the precedents which define and delineate the jurisdiction of this court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court in a number of decision has laid down the parameters within which this court had to consider whether the powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. deserve to be invoked or not. Where the indictment is grossly unjustified and unreasonable and the very initiation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of court, such powers can be invoked. It is not necessary for me to advert to the various precedents on the point. Suffice it to say that the relevant precedents have been brought to my notice. The relevant precedents have been brought to my notice. The manthra to unlock the door of Sec.482 Cr.P.C. is failure/miscarriage of justice and consequent abuse of process. If the proceedings suffer from that vice, the door opens.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cognizance taken against the petitioners is totally unjustified and prays for invocation of th