Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 444 (AP)

Chilka Srinivas v. State Of A. P.

2003-03-18

DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM

body2003
DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Case was filed by Accused 2 and 3 against the order, dated 8-8-2001, of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kamareddy dismissing Cri. M. P. No. 640 of 2001 filed for deletion of the names of Accused 2 and 3 in the complaint and for discharging them in C. C. No. 794 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE Revision Petitioners-Accused 2 and 3 contended that the Respondent-the State Food Inspector, Nizamabad filed a complaint against them along with A-1 for the offence punishable under Ss. 16 (1) (a), (i), 7 (1), 2 (i) (a) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "the Act") alleging that the sample of sugar boiled confectionary was taken from the shop of A-1 on 15-5-1999 and the Revision Petitioners are the partners and thereby they committed the said offences alleged against them (Revision Petitioners ). A letter was addressed to A-1 and A-1 stated that the Revision Petitioners are also jointly carrying on business and on that ground the Revision Petitioners were also shown as Accused. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy observed that he considered all the documents filed by the prosecution and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient and prima facie material against the Revision Petitioners to proceed against them, and accordingly dismissed the said Cri. M. P. No. 640 of 2001. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy in the said Cri. M. P. No. 640 of 2001, the Revision Petitioners filed this Criminal Revision Case contending that the lower Court erred in taking cognizance of the case against them; that the learned Magistrate ought to have seen that there was absolutely no material except the letter written by A-1 to proceed against the Revision Petitioners and hence the Criminal Revision Case may be allowed and the Revision Petitioners may be discharged. ( 4 ) NOW the point for consideration is whether the lower Court committed error in dismissing the said Cri. M. P. No. 640 of 2001 and if so, whether the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed ? ( 5 ) THE State Food Inspector, Nizamabad made complaint against the Revision Petitioners and A-1 for the offence punishable under Ss. M. P. No. 640 of 2001 and if so, whether the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed ? ( 5 ) THE State Food Inspector, Nizamabad made complaint against the Revision Petitioners and A-1 for the offence punishable under Ss. 16 (1) (a), (i), 7 (1), 2 (i) (a) (m) of the Act alleging that on 15-5-1999 while A-1 was transacting the business in his shop, the Food Inspector took sample of sugar boiled confectionary from his shop; that subsequently the Food Inspector addressed a letter to A-1 and A-1 informed the Food Inspector by this letter, dated 31-7-1999, that the Revision Petitioners-A-2 and A-3 are partners and that all of them are jointly carrying on business. In view of the contents of the letter of A-1, the Food Inspector included the names of Revision Petitioners-A-2 and A-3 in the array of accused and laid the complaint. ( 6 ) EXCEPT the letter written by A-1, there is absolutely no material for the Food Inspector to come to the conclusion that the Revision Petitioners-A-2 and A-3 were also partners along with A-1 in carrying on business. A-1 in his letter, dated 31-7-1999 stated that three of them constitute a partnership and that they did not obtain any licence from the Municipality or from the C. T. O. or any license under the provisions of the Act. The Revision Petitioners-A-2 and A-3 denied that they are the partners and that they are carrying on business along with A-1. In view of the fact that no documentary evidence is forthcoming with regard to the registration of the firm or partnership business or registration extract, the Revision Petitioners cannot be said to be partners of the firm. In fact, the Revision Petitioners denied that they started any business much less with A-1. On the admission of A-1, the Revision Petitioners-A-2 and A-3 cannot be prosecuted unless there is other evidence. The Food Inspector did not collect any other evidence to show that the Revision Petitioners-A-2 and A-3 have got interest in the business. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Revision Petitioners-A-2 and A-3 are not liable to be prosecuted for the offence alleged against them and, therefore, their names are liable to be deleted. For the abovesaid reasons, the Magistrate committed error in dismissing the said Cri. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Revision Petitioners-A-2 and A-3 are not liable to be prosecuted for the offence alleged against them and, therefore, their names are liable to be deleted. For the abovesaid reasons, the Magistrate committed error in dismissing the said Cri. M. P. No. 640 of 2001 and hence this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed. ( 7 ) IN the result, the Criminal Revision case is allowed. The names of Revision Petitioners-A-2 and A-3 are liable to be deleted from the list of the array of accused in the said C. C. No. 794 of 2000. The Revision Petitioners-A-2 and A-3 are discharged under Section 227, Cr. P. C. The prosecution shall proceed against A-1 and the lower Court may dispose of the said C. C. No. 794 of 2000 according to law. Petition allowed.