Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 450 (MP)

Jayantilal Jain v. State of M. P.

2019-06-26

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2019
ORDER 1. The applicants have filed the present application under section 482 of CrPC for quashment of criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 867/2013 pending before the Court of JMFC, Badnawar, District - Dhar. 2. The applicant no. 1 is carrying on a business of selling grocery at village Bhensola, Tehsil - Badnawar, District - Dhar. Applicant No. 2 is also a businessman. On 3.12.2012, the food inspector, during his regular visit at about 1 O'clock at noon, came at village Bhensola and visited the shop of applicant no. 1 and during inspection, he took one tea bag of Lalji Gold CTC Leaf Tea - 250 grams for checking the standard and paid Rs. 50/- as price to the said shopkeeper and did the sampling work at his shop and prepared a panchanama before the witnesses. Applicant No. 1 informed that he had purchased the said tea bag from applicant No. 2, therefore, the respondent issued a notice to the applicants demanding particulars of the firm and names of firm proprietor. The applicants accordingly, supplied necessary information to the food inspector. The tea bag was sent to the food laboratory, Bhopal and a report was received stating that the product is misbranded. On this report, the respondent filed a complaint against the applicants in the Court of JMFC, Badnawar on 5.9.2013. The Court of JMFC, Badnawar registered the criminal case No. 867/2013 against the applicants. The applicants thereafter, moved an application before the trial Court for dismissal of the said complaint on the ground that after coming into force of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 ( in short 'the Act'), the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and tried the case. Learned Judge, vide order dated 3.10.2018, has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicants have filed the present application before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that in view of the provisions of section 68 of the Act, the Court of JMFC has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As per the said section, an officer, not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate of the District will be acted as adjudicating officer for adjudication in the matter and complete procedure has been provided under the said Act for adjudication. As per the said section, an officer, not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate of the District will be acted as adjudicating officer for adjudication in the matter and complete procedure has been provided under the said Act for adjudication. He further relied upon the section 52 of the Act stating that the breach of any provision of this Act provides only for penalty, which may extend to Rs. 3 lacs. Thus, there is no jail sentence provided under the Act. In such circumstances, he submits that the present application deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned P.L for the respondent / State supports the order passed by the Court below and submits that the Court below has not committed any error in 3 rejecting the application filed by the applicants. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. In the present case, a complaint has been filed against the applicants in the Court of JMFC, Badnawar on 5.9.2013 alleging breach of provision of sub-section 2 of section 52, 31(1) and 63 of the Act. section 68 of the Act provides for adjudication. The said section reads as under : " 68. Adjudication.- (1) For the purposes of adjudication under this Chapter, an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate of the district where the alleged offence is committed, shall be notified by the State Government as the Adjudicating Officer for adjudication in the manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) The Adjudicating Officer shall, after giving the person a reasonable opportunity for making representation in the matter, and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has committed the contravention of provisions of this Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder, impose such penalty as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions relating to that offence. (3) The Adjudicating Officer shall have the powers of a civil Court and- (a) all proceedings before him shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (b) shall be deemed to be a Court for the purposes of sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (b) shall be deemed to be a Court for the purposes of sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (4) While adjudicating the quantum of penalty under this Chapter, the Adjudicating Officer shall have due regard to the guidelines specified in section 49." 7. As per the said section, for the purpose of adjudication under this chapter, an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate of the District, where the alleged offence is committed, shall be notified by the State Government as a adjudicating officer. In the present case, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the State Government has already notified the Additional District Judge of the District as adjudicating authority in the present case. Sub-section 3 further provides that adjudicating officer shallhave power of civil Court. section 52 of the Act provides for penalty for misbranded food and as per this provision for breach of any provision of this Act, he shall be liable for penalty, which may extend to Rs. 3 lacs. Thus, no jail sentence is provided under the Act, therefore, in the present case, the JMFC, after coming into force of the new Act, has no jurisdiction to entertain the applicatiojn. The judgment relied by the Court below, while rejecting the application, would not be applicable in the present case. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, present application is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 867/2013 pending in the Court of JMFC, Badnawar, District - Dhar are hereby quashed.