State of Gujarat
& ANR. Vs. Rameshchandra Shivratan Kosar & ANR.Etc [2009] INSC 847 (28 April
2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1457-1463 OF 2004
State of Gujarat and Anr. ..Appellants Versus Rameshchandra Shivratan Kosar and
Anr. etc. ..Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
Challenge
in these appeals is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat
High Court allowing seven applications filed in terms of Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). In the applications
prayer was made to quash the proceedings pending before four Judicial
Magistrates and one Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom three proceedings
were pending. The cases were instituted on the basis of complaints filed for
alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 16 read with Section
7(1) and 7 (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the
`Act'). It was indicated in the complaints that the Food Inspector had gone to
the shop of the respondents and had obtained sample in accordance with the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short the `Rules'). The samples
were sent to the public analyst and the report was received showing that the
food product of samples which were collected contained `Saccharin'. The use of
Saccharin or addition thereof in a food product was impermissible and food
articles containing Saccharin which was not permitted to be used made the food
article adulterated. The present respondents had stored the food articles in
the business premises with the intention to sell them and had actually sold the
articles to the Food Inspector. On receiving the complaints the concerned
Magistrates registered the complaints and issued process. The High Court was
moved for quashing the complaints. It was the stand of the applicants that the
sample did not contain any prohibited substance and the food article was not
adulterated. The stand was that the food product in respect of which the
samples were collected was really a Pan Masala and, therefore, has to be
construed as such. It was therefore submitted that if it is treated as Pan
Masala it fulfills the requisite standard.
2.
Stand
of the present appellants was that the quantum of artificial sweetener exceeded
the maximum limit of artificial sweetener.
3.
The
High Court accepted the prayer on the ground that the complaint did not
disclose any offence. Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed.
4.
In
support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is
not a case where Section 482 of Code has any application. The exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code should not have been made. Reference is
made to the Food Analyst report on the basis of which the proceedings were
initiated.
5.
Learned
counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the analysis by
the public analyst was not done keeping in view the requisite parameters. It is
submitted that the norms which were applicable when the analysis were made had
not been kept in view.
6.
The
parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has been
highlighted by this court in large number of cases. To a pointed query as to
whether in the petition filed before the High Court there was any challenge or
any specific stand taken about the requisite norms having not been followed by the
public analyst, it was submitted that though that was not specifically done yet
the specific stand was that there was no violation and the ingredients were
within the permissible limit. The High Court does not appear to have considered
this aspect at all and factual controversies were involved which could not have
been adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.
7.
That
being so, the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code is clearly
indefensible. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The appeals
are allowed. We make it clear that we have interfered in the matter because the
scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code had not been kept in view and not on
merits.
..........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
..........................................J.
Back
