Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 677 (MP)

M S BANGA v. STATE OF M P

2005-07-04

W.A.SHAH

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. The applicants are challenging by the instant application the issuance of process in Criminal Case no. 619/2002 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to application the applicant No. 6 Hindustan Lever limited is a Public Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies act, 1913 having its registered office at 165/166 Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai and is inter alia engaged in the business of manufacture and/or marketing of various fast moving consumer goods such as soaps, detergents, personal products, food products etc. including the product in question i. e. , Lipton Taaza Tea. ( 3. ) THE instant complaint was instituted before the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Ratlam by Respondent. The complaint inter alia alleged shorn of details that on 07-07-2000 one Krishna Kumar Goel purchased from one of the Redistribution Stockiest of Hindustan Lever Limited several packs of 250 grams of Lipton Taaza Tea. The particulars which were mentioned on the pack were :-Lipton Taaza net Weight: 250 g mrp. Rs. 42. 50 pkd 05/2000 code No. U29a9 mfd By : Hindustan Lever Limited 165/166, Backbay Reclamation mumbai 400 020 ( 4. ) THEREAFTER on 23-11-2002 almost one and a half years from the date of the said purchase, the said retainer took one such pack of Lipton Taaza tea to the office of the Respondent and alleged that the package did not contain the amount of tea that it claimed to contain, in other words that the pack claimed that its net weight was 250 grms but nevertheless it suffered from shortage in weight. The Respondent thereafter on receiving the complaint weighed the pack in his office and reached the conclusion that the pack weighed 214 grams and not 250 grams and thereby discovered shortage in weight of 36 grams. Hence he seized the pack and recorded a seizure memo dated 23-11-2001 and thereby has brought the instant complaint against the applicants under Section 39 read with Section 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. According to the applicants, there has been misapplication of mind on his part and gross abuse of his powers. ( 5. ) ON the said complaint, summons has been issued against all the accused applicants even when there exists no prima facie ground to issue the same. According to the applicants, there has been misapplication of mind on his part and gross abuse of his powers. ( 5. ) ON the said complaint, summons has been issued against all the accused applicants even when there exists no prima facie ground to issue the same. There has been no nexus between the alleged offence and the accused persons specially the applicants No. 1 to 5 being officials of the applicant No. 6 the Company. The applicants No. 1 to 5 are in no way responsible for the day to day working of the said company. There is no specific allegation against the applicants No. 1 to 5 for the alleged offence. Hence, this petition. ( 6. ) LEARNED Senior Advocate of the applicants assailed the issuance of the summons in question on the two grounds, namely, that the said retailer has not been prosecuted by the Respondent, therefore, the Court of Chief judicial Magistrate, Ratlam has no jurisdiction in the matter; and that no allegation that the Directors are responsible for day to day business of the company as has been made in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is not tenable against the applicants No. 1 to 5. ( 7. ) DURING the course of arguments, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that Section 74 of the Standards of weights and Measures Act, 1976 is similar to Section 17 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954. He submitted that with reference to Section 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide 1983 (II) FAC 241 (Sri rakesh Palta and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh), the Honble Andhra pradesh High Court has held as under :- "prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954- Section 20-A-Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955- Rule 22a-Scope of- Complaint not filed against the local vendor but against the manufacturer in another State- Jurisdiction of the court- Held the Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad had no jurisdiction to take the complaint filed only against them when such complaint was not also filed against the local vendor at hyderabad from whom the sample of vanaspathi was obtained. " ( 8. ) THE learned Senior Advocate also submitted that provisions of section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1910 are also not different and with reference to Section 28 thereof vide 1989 (1) FAC 173 (Parasmal Vs. " ( 8. ) THE learned Senior Advocate also submitted that provisions of section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1910 are also not different and with reference to Section 28 thereof vide 1989 (1) FAC 173 (Parasmal Vs. Drug inspector and others), the Honble High Court of Rajasthan has held as under:- "drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1910, Section 28-Jurisdiction to take cognizance-The offence punishable under Section 27 (b) of the act stood committed at Jodhpur. It was complete at Jodhpur. No consequence ensued at Jalore within the meaning of Section 179, cr. P. C.- The provisions Section 180, Cr. P. C. are also not applicable in this case. The offence of storing and selling the said commodity punishable under Section 28 (b) of the Act stood committed at Jodhpur- The complaint has been filed by the drugs Inspector against the accused petitioner only. If M/s agarwal and Jain Brothers, Jalore would have been impleaded along with the accused petitioner in the complaint, the position would have been different. Both of them could be tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore- The order under revision cannot be said legal and proper. It is held that the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore had no jurisdiction to take the cognizance and try the accused of the said offence. " ( 9. ) THE learned Senior Advocate also submitted that vide 2001 (4)Crimes 294 (Mohammed Ahmad Khan and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), the honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held as under :-"essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 3/7- Prosecution for offence against employees of a manufacturing company carrying manufacturing activities outside the State- Local vendor from whom sample of fertilizer was drawn not joined as accused in the case- Whether Special Court at Shajapur where samples were drawn in Madhya Pradesh had jurisdiction to try offence ? No. " ( 10. ) IN the light of the observations of the above cases, in view of the facts as found with regards the instant complaint, the same is not within the jurisdiction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam since the retailer has not been impleaded. ( 11. ) AS regards the second submission that there is no allegation in the complaint that the Directors of the accused Company are responsible for day to day business of the Company. ( 11. ) AS regards the second submission that there is no allegation in the complaint that the Directors of the accused Company are responsible for day to day business of the Company. I find that the applicants have not supplied the copy of the complaint. Therefore, it is not possible to dwell upon the subject. ( 12. ) IN view of what has been stated above relating to the point of jurisdiction, this application deserves to be allowed. It is, therefore, allowed. The complaint in question pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam is quashed for want of local jurisdiction. M. Cr. C. allowed.