Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 250 (BOM)

R. Mallikharjuna v. State of A. P.

2006-02-22

P.S.NARAYANA

body2006
JUDGMENT :- Heard Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned Counsel representing· the petitioners in all these criminal petitions and the leaned Public Prosecutor Sri Nageswararao. 2. Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners had taken this Court through the grounds raised in all these criminal petitions and would maintain that his contention is not with regard to the aspect of sending the sample of Chanda Vanaspathi for analysis to the Public Analyst, the delay and the other aspects. In all fairness, the learned Counsel would maintain that these aspects may have to be gone into at the time of trial. The learned Counsel however, would point out as to the report of the Public Analyst and would contend that the last portion of the report of the Public Analyst specifies Baudouin test and the same is also· within the permissible limit and in the light of the same, these proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel placed reliance on Municipal Committee, Amritsar Vs. Mehar Singh, 1972 Food and Adulteration Cases 603. 3. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor Sri Nageswararao would maintain that all these aspects are no doubt defences available to the accused, and these aspects may have to be decided only at the appropriate stage. The learned Public Prosecutor also would contend with regard to the fact as to whether Baudouin test is a doubtful test or not and whether it is within the permissible limits or not, these are all questions, which may have to be decided at the time of trial and hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. 4. Heard the learned Counsels on record at length. 5. As can be seen from several of the grounds raised in this batch of criminal petitions, the other grounds raised with regard to Chanda Vanaspathi Oil and the delay in sending the sample for analysis to the Public Analyst and the delay in respect of the report and the prejudice caused in relation thereto are all matters, which may have to be gone into at the time of trial. No doubt, strong reliance was placed on the report of the public analyst, wherein, under the columns of the test done, the values obtained and values permitted in Clause A.19 in Appendix B to the P.F.A. Rules it was specified as hereunder: Test done Value obtained Values permitted in Clause A.19 In Appendix B to the PFA Rules Butryo-refractometer 49.8 Not less than 48 Reading at 40 degree C. Melting point 38 degree C 31 degree C. to 41.0 degree C Unsaponifiable matter 1.50% Not more than 2.0% Free fatty acids (as Olcic 0.188% Not more than 0.25% Acid) Moisture : 0.056% Not more than 0.25% Test for Vitamin A Positive Should be positive Test for Nickel Negative Not more than 1.5 p.p.m Synthetic Colour Absent Should be Absent Test for Argemone Oil Negative Should be Negative Castor Oil test Positive Shall be Positive (Colour Red Unit 17 Produced by Baudouin's test shall not be lighter than 2.0 Red Units in 1 cm. Cell) 6. No doubt, strong reliance was placed on a decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Municipal Committee, Amritsar Vs. Mehar Singh, Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 1972, P.603. 7. With regard to the aspects of the applicability or otherwise of the Baudouin test, the validity of the report of the Public Analyst and whether the value which had been shown is within the permissible limits or not, these are all the questions, which may have to be decided at the appropriate stage and at any rate, this Court is of the considered opinion that on that ground, the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold. 8. However, at this stage, Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, the learned Counsel representing all these petitioners would contend that the same company is involved and inasmuch as samples were collected by different Food Inspectors at several places, complaints had been filed in different Courts and it would be just and proper if all these matters are tried by one learned Magistrate, so that, conflicting judgments may be avoided, if not, it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners. 9. Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is a new provision empowers the High Court to exercise its supervision over Subordinate Courts with a view to securing expeditious disposal of cases. The said view was expressed in Amrik Singh Vs. Premier Tyres Ltd., 1982 Cri.L..J .1723 (Gau.). 9. Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is a new provision empowers the High Court to exercise its supervision over Subordinate Courts with a view to securing expeditious disposal of cases. The said view was expressed in Amrik Singh Vs. Premier Tyres Ltd., 1982 Cri.L..J .1723 (Gau.). It is true that Chapter XXXI of the Code deals with Transfer of Criminal cases. Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. Section 407 of the Code deals with the power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals. It is also true that some grounds are specified under Section 407 of the Code for ordering transfer of cases and appeals. Likewise, Section 408 of the Code deals with the power of Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals. Sections 409, 410 and 411 of the Code deal with withdrawal of cases. Section 412 of the Code dealing with reasons to be recorded specifies that a Sessions Judge or Magistrate making an order under Sections 408, 409, 410 or 411 shall record reasons for making it. However, all these cases to be tried by one learned Magistrate are the cases wherein similar point is involved and concerned with the same company. Even if the object of Section 483 of the Code is taken into consideration, the High Court is expected to exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrate subordinate to it so as to ensure expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrate but also to avoid the passing of conflicting orders. Inasmuch as the same question is involved in all these matters, this Court is well satisfied that it is a fit case where the powers under Section 483 of the Code to be exercised by issuing suitable directions. 10. Apart from this· aspect of the matter, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, inasmuch as common question is involved in all these matters and inasmuch as all these matters are concerned with Messers Liberty Oil Mills, it would be just and proper, if all these matters are tried and disposed of by one and the same Magistrate. It is stated that the matter relating to criminal petition No.2676 of 2003 i.e., C.C.No.43 of 2003 is pending at present on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad. It is stated that the matter relating to criminal petition No.2676 of 2003 i.e., C.C.No.43 of 2003 is pending at present on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad. In view of the same, all these matters pending before different Magistrates to be withdrawn and transferred to the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad to be tried along with C.C.No.43 of 2003 for proper, effective and expeditious disposal of all these matters so as to avoid the conflicting judgments and also to avoid causing prejudice to Messers Liberty Oil Mills Limited. 11. The criminal petitions as far as the quash proceedings are concerned, are hereby dismissed, but, however, with the above direction to transfer all the matters to be tried along with C.C.No.43 of 2003 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Petitions dismissed.