Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 603 (PNJ)

Rajinder Kumar v. Union of India

2004-05-20

BINOD KUMAR ROY

body2004
JUDGMENT Binod Kumar Roy, C.J. - The petitioner, Rajinder Kumar son of Dawarka Dass, has come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.9.1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, framing charges against him as well as the charge dated 22.9.1989 framed against him and other accused persons by invoking the inherent powers of this court. The petitioner is accused No. 2. The two charges framed against him and others, which are sought to be quashed, read as follows :- "That some time during the year 1983 in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy hatched by you all Dawarka Dass, Rajinder Kumar, Harcharan Dass, Harbinder Singh, Lakhbir Singh, Jogi Ram, Tarlok Singh, Subhash Chand and Rattan Singh along with Surinder Singh since deceased and Paras Ram approver at Bathinda, Amritsar and Narwana etc. your co-accused Dawarka Dass Mittal, Rajinder Mittal and Harcharan Das purchased various quantities of beef tallow from M/s General Food Pvt. Ltd. Indore and M/s Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd., New Delhi, in the name of M/s Manoj Container and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bathinda in May/June, 1983 and processed the same in the BCBM Factory Bathinda and supplied various tins to other accused namely Harbinder Singh, Lakhbir Singh, Rattan Singh etc. of Amritsar and accused Jogi Ram, Tarlok Chand and Subash Chand at Narwana, and those tins of inedible beef tallow were sold to Narinder Kumar PW and others as edible vanaspati ghee in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by you all with the intention of cheating and thereby, you all committed an offence punishable under Section 420/120-B Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly, at about the same time at Bathinda you i.e. accused Dawarka Dass Mittal and Rajinder Kumar Mittal destroyed the evidence relating to the purchase and processing of inedible beef tallow and its supply as vegetable oil etc. so as to save yourself for criminal liability in this case and both of you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court." 2. Mr. so as to save yourself for criminal liability in this case and both of you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court." 2. Mr. H.L. Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, tried to persuade me in support of the prayer afore-mentioned by submitting inter alia as follows :- i) the charges have been framed on the basis of the second FIR, which was not permissible in law; ii) the charges, if at all, could have been framed for committal of offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and not under Sections 420/120- B/201 Indian Penal Code. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act being a Special Act, it will have a overriding effect over the general provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The charges framed earlier under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were quashed by the High Court and thereafter it would not have been framed under the provisions of the Indian penal Code; iii) There was no material whatsoever before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate even to frame charges under Sections 420/120-B/201 of the Indian Penal Code; and iv) this criminal case has got a protracted history. It was submitted in 1983. Charges were framed by the impugned order in 1989 for quashing of which the Petitioner moved this Court and it has remained pending till date. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Gupta, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the CBI, on the other hand, contends as follows :- "Having regard to the importance of the commission of offence, the Government of Punjab made a necessary notification and handed over the investigation to the CBI, which after deep prove (probe ?) collected relevant materials, which were furnished to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who after having given opportunity to the Petitioner and other accused considered the desirability of framing charges by the order sought to be impugned by the Petitioner and proceeded to frame the charges. The charges are framed on the basis of the evidence collected by the CBI after deep prove (probe ?) and it is correct to state that from the materials on the record, the charges could not be framed. The charges are framed on the basis of the evidence collected by the CBI after deep prove (probe ?) and it is correct to state that from the materials on the record, the charges could not be framed. The contention that there was a second FIR is also not correct inasmuch as the CBI after the notification registered the same case under the provisions of the Act and had made its prove (probe ?). The contention that the charges ought to have been framed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is also not correct inasmuch as on the materials on the record, the CBI had convinced the Court that there was no question of admixture, but defrauding the public by selling of tins in the name of Shud Vanaspati Ghee is a non-vegetarian product, whereas Shud Vanaspati is apparently a vegetarian product. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that beef tallow was got mixed with something else, the sale of Shud Vanaspati Ghee in which beef tallow is mixed, apparently prima facie constitutes commission of offence under which the Petitioner has been charged. After the case was handed over to the CBI, logical investigations were made and it was the Petitioner, who succeeded in dragging these proceedings for about 15 years in this Court. The petition filed for vacating interim order of stay remained pending. The case was heard and re-heard by different Benches and kept pending for which the prosecution should not be allowed to suffer in which a person who has allegedly committed an offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code and has succeeded in destroying the necessary evidence, should be let off without any trial." 4. The questions urged cannot be decided on the basis of the mere affidavits filed in this Court by the Petitioner, to which counter has been filed by the CBI. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 22.9.1989 has taken pains to take note of the facts and other relevant circumstances. The exact allegation is that the Petitioner and other co-accused persons after processing the inedible beef tallow in tins used to supply for its sale as edible vegetable oil under the fake name of Pupil brand vanaspati ghee/RBD Palm Oil. In support of the accusation, Narinder Kumar, Surinder Singh and Paras Ram were examined by the CBI. The exact allegation is that the Petitioner and other co-accused persons after processing the inedible beef tallow in tins used to supply for its sale as edible vegetable oil under the fake name of Pupil brand vanaspati ghee/RBD Palm Oil. In support of the accusation, Narinder Kumar, Surinder Singh and Paras Ram were examined by the CBI. It has also come on the record that the Petitioner and Dawarka Dass Mittal had also allegedly destroyed the evidence to save themselves and thereby they are liable for trial under the provisions of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The argument made that there is a special Act, namely, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, regarding sale of adulterated food and thus, the accused persons could not be challaned under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, was also considered and rightly rejected after observing that in the instant case, the accused had sold 100 tins of inedible beef tallow as vegetable ghee besides the fact mentioning the report of the Analyst which is on the file that those 100 tins contain inedible beef tallow and no sort of vegetable oil and thus, the offence of cheating has been clearly made out. The learned Magistrate has also considered that quashing of the proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act does not absolve the accused of their liability of commission of offence of cheating under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. I was also taken to the report of the Public Analyst. The report is categorical in stating that the contents do not contain shisham oil at all against the minimum prescribed standard of 5%. The contents contain beef stuffs. I am impressed by the argument of Mr. Gupta that the beef tallow is not a food within the meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and therefore, the question of admixture for the purpose of attracting the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act does not appeal to me at all. It is true that the case was started in 1983 and the investigation was handed over to the CBI in September, 1983. The echo of the case was also heard in our Parliament. The litigation was protracted on one ground or the other. It had remained pending in this Court for long about 15 years. It is true that the case was started in 1983 and the investigation was handed over to the CBI in September, 1983. The echo of the case was also heard in our Parliament. The litigation was protracted on one ground or the other. It had remained pending in this Court for long about 15 years. Thus, for no fault of the prosecution, it should not be deprived to conduct the trial of the case though it should be done expeditiously. 5. I do not find any flaw in the reasons given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed, however, with a direction to the trial Court to proceed with it expeditiously curving (curbing ?) un-reasonable prayers for adjournment which may be made by the defence and/or even prosecution. Let a copy of this order along with the record be despatched to the Court concerned forthwith. Petition dismissed.