இது நம்ம ஸ்டைலுங்கோ

செவிக்கு உணவில்லாதபோது சிறிது வயிற்றுக்கும் ஈயப்படும்.

Tuesday 24 November 2009

நீதிமன்றத்தில் தாக்கல் செய்யும் எதிருரை

Before the Honourable Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Tirunelveli.
Crl.M.P.No. 0f 2009
in
S.T.C. . . . . . . . /2002

Food Inspector,
Tirunelveli Corporation. ….. Respondent/Complainant.

Versus

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioners / Accused No.3&4.

COUNTER SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT
1. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioners/Accused 3&4 is not maintainable in law nor can it be sustainable on the facts.
2. It is submitted that all the allegations contained in the petition, except those that are specifically admitted hereunder, shall deemed to be denied.
3. The petitioner have prayed to drop the prosecution against them.
4. The above petitioners approached the Honourable High Court of Madras on the same grounds and they were Petitioner No. 2 & 3 in the Crl.O.P.. . . . . of 2003 in which the Honourable High Court, Madras pronounced the following order on 06.03.2003:
“In consideration of the facts pleaded having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side, this court is of the view that the subject is ripe for trial and it is only desirable to direct the petitioner to approach the trial court to carry on with the trial procedure so as to answer many questions which are raised before this court by both sides which are mostly factual and therefore, this court at this juncture doesnot find any reason to cause its interference and hence the following order:
In result,
(i) the above Criminal Original Petition is disposed off;
(ii) the petitioners are always at liberty to raise preliminary objections testifying the validity of the case on legalities.”
5.The same petitioners again filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P. . . . . 0f 2004 before the Honourable Madurai Bench of Madras High court which was also dismissed by the Honourable High Court Bench on 25.10.2007.
6. Moreover, the petitioners/accused no. 3&4 have been arrayed as accused in the food adulteration case filed in this Court only on the basis of the letter send by the authorized signatory of the . . . . . . Ltd. which has been marked as Exhibit-23 in the above case, when the PW-1, Food Inspector gave his evidence in chief on 21.09.2004.
7. The label of the sample is having the names of RBD Palmolein oil and Palmoil, which are two different oils, and the sample is not plainly and conspicuously labeled so as to indicate its true character as per the PFA Act 1954 and Rules made there under. Thus, the food sample is Misbranded. Hence, the Public Analyst who examined the label of the food sample reported the sample as Misbranded. Based on the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector has arrayed the seller and the manufacturer as accused.
Hence, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to dismiss the petition and thus render justice.


Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.II,
Tirunelveli.























Before the Honourable Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tirunelveli.

S.T.C.492/2007.
Complainant : Food Inspector,
Tirunelveli Corporation.

Accused-1/Petitioner : Duraipandi


Counter filed on behalf of the complainant by the Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.II to the Petition filed by the petitioner/ accused (A-1) under section 19 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954.
1.The petition itself is not maintainable in law or in facts.

2. Para 1 of the petition is admitted.

3. Para 2 of the petition is admitted.

4. Para 3 of the petition is denied. The petitioner/accused (A-1) is running his business at Door No.13/6-B, Perumal Sannathi street, Palayamcottah and not at Palayamcottah as stated in the petition.

5.Para 4 of the petition is not maintainable. The Food sample for analysis was lifted from the custody of the accused No.1. Accused No.2 & 3 are the partners of the Ramsankar Agencies. Accused No.4 is the agency that has sold the misbranded Arokya Milk. So they are necessary parties to this case. Moreover the petitioners/accused has not filed any documentary evidence to invoke Sec.19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the burden of proof rest upon the petitioners/accused.
6. Para 5 of the petition is not maintainable. Regarding the presence of the petitioners/accused for trial can be decided only after the petitioners/accused prove themselves for eligibility to invoke Sec.19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Hence, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to dismiss the petition and thus render justice.
Tirunelveli,
23.07.2003 Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.II.














Before the Honourable Judicial Magistrate Court No.V, Tirunelveli.
Crl.M.P.No. 0f 2009
in
S.T.C. 868/2002

Food Inspector,
Tirunelveli Corporation. ….. Respondent/Complainant.

Versus

A.Murugesan . . . . Petitioners / Accused No.5

COUNTER SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT
1. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner/Accused 5 is not maintainable in law nor can it be sustainable on the facts.
2. It is submitted that all the allegations contained in the petition, except those that are specifically admitted hereunder, shall deemed to be denied.
3. The petitioner has prayed to drop the prosecution against them.
4. The above petitioner approached the Honourable High Court of Madras on the same grounds and he was Petitioner No. 4 in the Crl.O.P.654 of 2003 in which the Honourable High Court, Madras pronounced the following order on 06.03.2003:
“In consideration of the facts pleaded having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side, this court is of the view that the subject is ripe for trial and it is only desirable to direct the petitioner to approach the trial court to carry on with the trial procedure so as to answer many questions which are raised before this court by both sides which are mostly factual and therefore, this court at this juncture doesnot find any reason to cause its interference and hence the following order:
In result,
(i) the above Criminal Original Petition is disposed off;
(ii) the petitioners are always at liberty to raise preliminary objections testifying the validity of the case on legalities.”
5. The petitioners 2&3 in the above Crl.O.P.654 of 2003 again filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.7359 0f 2004 before the Honourable Madurai Bench of Madras High court which was also dismissed by the Honourable High Court Bench on 25.10.2007.
6. Moreover, the petitioner/accused no. 5 has been arrayed as accused in the food adulteration case filed in this Court only on the basis of the letter send by the authorized signatory of the Alagendran Export Ltd. which has been marked as Exhibit-23 in the above case, when the PW-1, Food Inspector gave his evidence in chief on 21.09.2004.
7. The label of the sample is having the names of RBD Palmolein oil and Palmoil, which are two different oils, and the sample is not plainly and conspicuously labeled so as to indicate its true character as per the PFA Act 1954 and Rules made there under. Thus, the food sample is Misbranded. Hence, the Public Analyst who examined the label of the food sample reported the sample as Misbranded. Based on the report of the Public Analyst, the Food Inspector has arrayed the seller and the manufacturer as accused.
Hence, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to dismiss the petition and thus render justice.


Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.II,
Tirunelveli.


















Before the Honourable Judicial Magistrate Court No.Iv, Tirunelveli.
Cr.M.P. /2009
in
C.C.526/1992

Food Inspector,
Tirunelveli Corporation. ….. Respondent/Complainant.

Versus

Rathnam Enterprises rep. by . . . . Petitioners / Accused No.1&2
its Partner Prabhu
Kannan
Muthu

COUNTER SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT
1. The petition itself is not maintainable in law or in facts.

2. Para 1 of the petition is denied. The petitioners are arrayed as accused for the offences u/s.7(i),16(1)(a)(i)r/w 2(1a)&(b).

3. Para 2 of the petition is admitted.

4. Para 3 of the petition is admitted.

5. Para 4 & 5 of the petition are denied. The food sample for analysis was lifted from the custody of the accused No.3, who filed an application u/s.13(2) of the PFA Act, to send the second portion of the food sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Accordingly, the second portion of the food sample was remanded u/s. 13(2-A) of the said Act, in this Honourable court, vide P.R.No.317/1992 on 03.11.0992.
It is for the accused to take steps to send the second portion of the food sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Here, in this case, the accused has not taken any step to send the second portion to the Central Food Laboratory.
Hence, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to dismiss the petition and thus render justice.

Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.II.
Follow FOODNELLAI on Twitter

No comments: