Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2252 (RAJ)

Hansraj v. State

2022-08-17

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
ORDER : 1. These Criminal Misc. Petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3765/2016:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 (Annex.1) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order dated 26.05.2016 (Annex.2) passed by the learned trial Court may kindly be upheld and the petitioner may kindly be discharged.” In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1679/2017:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 (Annex.1) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the order dated 26.05.2016 (Annex.2) passed by the learned trial Court may kindly be upheld and the petitioner may kindly be discharged.” 2. The genesis of both the petitions lies in a common controversy, as the petitions have been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Nohar, whereby while quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.05.2016 passed by the learned trial court, of discharging the petitioners for the offences under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1954’), the learned trial court was directed to frame charge against the petitioners for the said offence, and to commence the necessary trial thereafter. 3. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the present criminal proceeding against the petitioners was launched on the basis of a private complaint, at Annex. 3, lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 herein, before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar. And that, it was alleged therein that the complainant, while checking the shop of petitioner-Hansraj, collected three samples of ‘Ujala’ Ghee in the presence of motbirs, and sent the same for the necessary analysis and examination, and that thereafter, it was found out that it was a case of mis-branding (false labelling). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it was only a case of incorrect labelling, wherein the words ‘best before’ was written in small letters, instead of in capital letters, and that the samples, upon being tested, did not reveal any kind of adulteration. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it was only a case of incorrect labelling, wherein the words ‘best before’ was written in small letters, instead of in capital letters, and that the samples, upon being tested, did not reveal any kind of adulteration. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the learned trial court, rightly took the said relevant aspect into consideration and passed a detailed and speaking order, whereby the petitioners were discharged of all the charges levelled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Respondent No. 1 i.e. the State preferred a revision petition and that the learned revisional Court erred in quashing and setting the order of discharge passed by the learned trial court and in directing the learned trial court to frame charge against the petitioners for the offences under the Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Patna rendered in M.D. Anand Aqua Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (Cri. Misc. Petition 14365/2009, decided on 26.02.2010) and Pramod Kumar Kediya Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (Cri. Misc. Petition 36007/2011, decided on 15.03.2012). Relevant portions of the same read as follows:- In M.D. Anand Aqua (supra) :- “The petitioner has been made accused in this case on the ground that he was selling Anand Aqua bottled drinking water which was allegedly misbranded, as such cognizance has been taken for the offences under section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 16 (1) of the Act is the penal section with respect to manufacture, sale, store or distribution of any article of food. It is alleged that the bottled drinking water was misbranded as it did not mention "BEST BEFORE" in capital letters rather it was printed in small letters. Misbrand has been defined in section 2 (ix) of the Act, which reads as follows: (ix) "misbranded" an article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded (k) if it is not labeled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made thereunder. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner's case falls within subsection (k) of section 2 (ix) of the Act. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner's case falls within subsection (k) of section 2 (ix) of the Act. Rule 32 of the Act envisages that month and year in Capital Letters upto which the product is based for consumption should be provided in the following manner. The manner indicates "BEST BEFORE..................MONTH AND YEAR". From the perusal of Rule 32 of the said Rules, it appears that the manufacturer ought to give these aspects such as date of packaging or manufacture in Capital Letters. It is not a case where the information has not been given to the consumers with respect to the period when the produce would be best utilized, rather the information has been given by printing it in small letters. I find that there is substantial compliance of the rule and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner can be held guilty of misbranding his product. For the aforesaid proposition, I rely on the principles of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Didwania and another v. The State of Bihar and another 2005 (1) PLJR 188 . 8. In the result, this application is allowed. In Pramod Kumar Kediya (supra) :- “Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue regarding labeling in small letter in respect of date of manufacturing and expiry has already been settled long back by a Bench of this court in a case reported in 2005 (1) PLJR 188 (Jagdish Prasad Didwania & Anr. Vs State of Bihar & Anr.). It was further submitted that relying on the said judgment subsequently in an another case which is reported in 2010(3) PLJR 31 (M.D., Anand Aqua, M/s S.B. Industries Vs The State of Bihar & Anr.) as well as an unreported order passed by this court in Cr. Misc. 29879 of 2001 disposed of with other two cases on 15th November, 2010 prosecution was quashed in similar circumstance. In this case a counter affidavit has also been filed by the opposite party no. 2. In the counter affidavit no new ground has been taken save and except the ground that the seized article was misbranded as on the labeling date of manufacturing and date of expiry was mentioned in small letter instead of capital letter. In this case a counter affidavit has also been filed by the opposite party no. 2. In the counter affidavit no new ground has been taken save and except the ground that the seized article was misbranded as on the labeling date of manufacturing and date of expiry was mentioned in small letter instead of capital letter. At the time of argument it was admitted by the parties that after cognizance no progress has taken place in the case before the court below. Since the issue has already been settled by this court in number of cases, there is no reason to record any contrary finding, and as such, following the judgment and order passed by this court in afore referred cases, there is no option but to set aside the order of cognizance dated 07.09.2006 and same is set aside. The petition stands allowed.” 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the private respondent oppose the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the impugned order was passed by the learned revisional court, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case and the judgments cited at the Bar. 10. This Court observes, as is evident from the record and as rightly appreciated by the learned trial court, the case at hand is that of mis-branding i.e. incorrect labelling of ‘best before’, which, as per the statutory requirement, ought to have been in capital letters, and not in small letters. However, as revealed from the record, upon being sent for testing, the samples of Ghee were not found to be adulterated. 11. This Court further observes that the learned trial court has rightly proceeded to discharge the petitioners of the charge levelled against them under the Act of 1954, and thus, the learned revisional court has erred in passing the impugned order. 12. Thus, looking into the relevant provision of law contained in Section 2(ix) (k) of the Act of 1954, and the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar, this Court quashes and sets aside the impugned order of the revisional Court, and restores the order of the learned trial court discharging the petitioners of all the charges levelled against them. 13. The present petitions stand allowed accordingly. All pending applications are disposed of.