STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. RAMESHCHANDRA SH!VRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1457-1463 of 2004 APRIL 28, 2009 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Parameters
c for exercise of jurisdiction under s. 482 – Discussed – Proceedings initiated against respondents uls. 7(1) and (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act – High Court quashed the proceedings in exercise of power under s.482 – Propriety of – Held: Not proper – Factual controversies were involved which could not have been adjudicated by the High Court in D proceedings u/s. 482 – Scope and ambit of s. 482 was not kept in view by the High Court – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – s. 7.
Complaints were filed alleging commission of E offences punishable under s.16 rlw s.7(1) and 7 (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It was alleged that the samples.collected by the Food Inspector from the
business premises of respondent were sent to the public analyst and the report received showed that the said samples contained a prohibited substance and thus the food articles, in respect of which the samples were
collected, and which were being stored and sold by the respondents, were adulterated. Respondents filed application uls.482 CrPC for G quashing of the complaints taking the stand that there
was no violation on their part and that the ingredients in the concerned food article were within the permissible limit. The High Court held that the complaints filed did not STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. V. RAMESHCHANDRA 135
SHIVRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC. disclose any offence and accordingly quashed the A proceedings. In appeals to the Court, it was contended that it was not a case where s.482 CrPC had any application and that
jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC should not have been exercised by the High Court. Respondents, on the other B hand, contended that analysis by the public analyst was not done keeping in view the requisite norms.
Allowing the appeals, the Court …. HELD: The parameters for exercise of jurisdiction c under s.482 CrPC 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 D 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 E
not have been adjudicated in the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. That being so, the exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court was clearly indefensible. [Paras 6, 7] [137-D-F]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1457-1463 of 2004 From the Judgement and Order dated 03.09.2002 of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 5511 of 1994, 2797, 2798, 2800, 2801, 2804 and 2805 of 1997.
Pinky Behra, Hemantika Wahi, for the Appellant. """' M.R.Anand, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Tarun Satija, Lawyer's Knit & Co., for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
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 B 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 c 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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G 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 H sweetener. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. V. RAMESHCHANDRA 137
SHIVRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 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 c 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 D 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 G and ambit of Section 482 of the Code had not been kept in
view and not on merits. B.B.B. Appeals allowed.