Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 856 (RAJ)

Vikas v. State of Rajasthan

2010-04-16

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble SHARMA, J.- This second bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The first bail application No. 9713 of 2009 was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated November 30, 2009 after hearing both the sides. 2. The brief facts of the case are that firm namely M/s. Mansharam Pooranmal situated in town Laxmangarh District Sikar is doing the business of selling Deshi Ghee and Mawa in sealed packets of various brands alongwith , other daily use house hold articles. It is submitted that for the purpose of sale, on 23.9.2009 the said firm purchased total 9 Cartoons of Kalpna Deshi Ghee containing total weight 135 ltrs., in 1 liter, 500 Mili Liters and 200 Mili Liters packings from the Dealer Shri Shyam Besan Utpadan Kendra, Plot No. 24 KaJi Kothi Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur vide bill No. 624 dated 23.9.2009. The said firm also purchased 7 boxes of Mawa Ag mark pure Ghee containing total weight 112 liters in 1 liter and 500 mili liter packings from Rajasthan Food Products having its godown at H.No. 105, Jalupura, Jaipur vide invoice No. 177 dated 16.4.2009. The learned counsel averred that from this it is clear that the said firm is not manufacturer of Deshi Ghee but is selling the same in sealed packs condition after purchasing it from the dealers or manufacturers. 3. On 1.11.2009 the complainant Enforcement Inspector Danta Ramgarh lodged a written report against the present petitioner at Police Station Laxmangarh stating that the above said firm is found to be indulging in selling adulterated Deshi Ghee and Mawa and huge quantity of Deshi Ghee and Mawa was recovered from him. 4. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the accused petitioner contended that the accused petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter and offence alleged to have been committed by him related to the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. For this purpose the, learned counsel cited the case of Jeewan Kumar Raut and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation JT 2009(9) SC 188 = 2009(3) RLW 2240 (SC). The accused petitioner was arrested on 1.11.2009. He moved the first bail application on 27.11.2009 before this Court after rejection of his bail by the sessions court, which was decided by this Court on 30.11.2009 as mentioned I above. The accused petitioner was arrested on 1.11.2009. He moved the first bail application on 27.11.2009 before this Court after rejection of his bail by the sessions court, which was decided by this Court on 30.11.2009 as mentioned I above. Thereafter the petitioner moved bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Sikar, who rejected the bail application on 5.1.2010 and now this second bail application has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused petitioner has not committed any offence which is either punishable with death sentence or imprisonment for life and the petitioner is ill judicial lock up since long. The learned counsel contended that it is settled law that the provision of section 420 IPC and other provisions will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner and it is a case covered by the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and hence the accused petitioner should be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments and contended that case under Section 420 IPC is made out against the accused petitioner. Definition of cheating has been defined under Section 415 IPC, which runs as under: "415. Cheating-Whoever, by deceiving any persons, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any a property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or ommit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property is said to "cheat." The accused petitioner has cheated the innocent citizens and the police has rightly added section 420 IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor has been rightly arrested by the police, who is dealing in adulterated Deshi Ghee and Mawa etc., which were recovered by the police from him, which is an offence against society. It is alleged that in present days these offences are increasing day by day. There is no change in circumstances in the case of the petitioner. 6. It is alleged that in present days these offences are increasing day by day. There is no change in circumstances in the case of the petitioner. 6. Without going into the merits of the case, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, the bail application filed by the accused petitioner under section 439 Cr.P.C. deserves to be rejected. 7. In the result, I pass the following order: (a) The second bail application filed by the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected. (b) the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months, if possible.