Karnataka High Court
Mandya District Co-Operative ... vs The State Of Karnataka By on 2 March, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4398/2021
C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4394/2021
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4398/2021:
BETWEEN:
MANDYA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
MILK PRODUCER'S SOCIETIES UNION LTD.,
O/AT GEJJALAGERE, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571428
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI D.ASHOK
AGE: 58 YEARS ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVINDRA PRASAD B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADDUR POLICE STATION
MADDUR-571428
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
BENGALURU-560001
2. SRI K.R.RANJANKUMAR
S/O SRI RAMANNA
AGE: 35 YEARS
R/O KONASALE VILLAGE
KOPPA TALUK
2
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571428. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SUNIL S. RAO AND SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATES FOR
R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439(2) R/W. SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2021 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN
CRL.MISC.NO.614/2021 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.161/2021 AND
CONSEQUENTLY CANCEL THE BAIL OF RESPONDENT NO.2.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4394/2021:
BETWEEN:
MANDYA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
MILK PRODUCER'S SOCIETIES UNION LTD.,
O/AT GEJJALAGERE, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571428
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI D.ASHOK
AGE: 58 YEARS ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVINDRA PRASAD B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADDUR POLICE STATION
MADDUR-571428
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
BENGALURU-560001
2. SRI RAJU P.
S/O SRI PUTTASWAMY
AGE: 35 YEARS
3
R/O MUDAGERA VILLAGE
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562159. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SUNIL S. RAO &
SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439(2) R/W. SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2021 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, IN
CRL.MISC.NO.601/2021 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.161/2021 AND
CONSEQUENTLY CANCEL THE BAIL OF RESPONDENT NO.2.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.02.2022 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These two petitions are filed under Section 439(2) read
with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by the complainant for cancellation
of bail granted in favour of accused Nos.1 and 3, praying to set
aside the order dated 11.06.2021 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.614/2021 and Crl.Misc.No.601/2021, respectively on
the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya arising
out of Crime No.161/2021 of Maddur Police Station, Mandya
District, for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 406 and
420 of IPC and Sections 7(1) and 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in both the petitions and the learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State and
the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that the complainant - Venkatesh, Manager of MANMUL,
Gejjalagere, Mandya, has lodged a complaint on 28.05.2021
alleging that P. Raju/accused No.1 being a contractor of MANMUL
and owner of a tanker bearing registration No.KA-51/AF-2634 to
supply milk to MANMUL, has violated the terms and conditions of
the transport contract and has committed the offences by
misusing the milk collected from BMC Centers and also indulged
in adulterating the milk and thereby he has caused monitory loss
to MANMUL.
4. The other accused, who has been granted bail, his
name has not been included in the FIR and mentioned in the
complaint and he has been served with a notice dated
31.05.2021, making an allegation that he made an attempt to
adulteration of milk and caused loss to MANMUL and he also
indulged in committing the offence. The Trial Court in
Crl.Misc.No.601/2021, granted bail in favour of accused No.1
and in Crl.Misc.No.614/2021, granted bail in favour of other
accused, who has been subsequently arraigned as accused No.3.
Hence, these two petitions are filed by the complainant seeking
cancellation of bail invoking Section 439(2) read with Section
482 of Cr.P.C.
5. The main contention of the complainant in
Crl.P.No.4394/2021 granted bail in favour of accused No.1,
contended that he has committed the serious offence and
indulged in scandalous activities endangering the health of the
general public who are the end users. When such being the case,
the very presence of the respondent herein was in need of fair
investigation. However, the Trial Court failed to take note of the
nature of the allegation made in the complaint and also
seriousness of the allegations made against him. The learned
counsel also would submit that the Trial Court has failed to
consider the complaint, which clearly establishes that the
respondent is the habitual offender and another vehicle also
seized which was holding secret compartment in between two
compartments for storing the water and its secret pipe
connecting to the Milk unloading Valve. In spite of it, the Trial
Court proceeded to enlarge him on bail on vague grounds.
Hence, it requires an interference of this Court.
6. The contention of the complainant in
Crl.P.No.4398/2021 is that the respondent has committed the
serious offences of food adulteration which is heinous offence
and the same is scandalous activities endangering the health of
the general public and while granting the anticipatory bail, the
Trial Court has not considered the nature of offences and this
respondent has suppressed the fact of habitual offender as he is
already indulged in similar activities and he was black-listed from
Bangalore District Co-operative Milk Producer's Societies Union
Limited. The vehicle was caught on 29.05.2021 and once again
another vehicle was caught in similar circumstances on
31.05.2021. When such being factual aspects of the case, the
Trial Court failed to take note of all these aspects. Hence, it
requires an interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State in both the
petitions would submit that the matter was referred under
investigation to CID and no permission for change of vehicle is
also taken and there was a separate water and milk secret
compartment in the vehicle which was used for collecting and
supply of milk and also the Investigating Officer collected the
material regarding collection of amount from private daily
supplying the milk belongs to the complainant dairy and the
amount is also collected in the name of the driver and also from
where the chemical was purchased for adulteration of milk and
the bill also collected during the course of investigation, load and
unload meteorology report is also taken and the same is evident
that a false report is collected. It is also contended that though
the letter is tendered for usage of change of vehicle for three
days and permission was not given. In spite of it, he had used
the different vehicle.
8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/accused in both the petitions, who has been given
permission to address his arguments, who vehemently contend
that the complainant not disputing the tendering of letter and
only in order to remove from the contract, a false allegation is
made and the nature of allegation made not attracts the criminal
offence. The learned trial Judge while granting bail has assigned
the reason and a detailed order was passed in paragraph No.10.
9. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/accused also would submit that the Food Adulteration Act is
a self contained act. In paragraph Nos.10 and 11, the Trial
Court has given the reasons and only with an intention to malign
the respondent, the present petitions are filed and no reasons
are made out to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
10. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dolat Ram and
others v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349,
wherein, the Apex Court held that the cancellation of bail already
granted must be considered and dealt with on different basis and
expression of opinion on merits at initial stage while dealing with
the application for anticipatory bail is improper.
11. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also relied
upon the orders passed by the trial Judge in
Crl.Misc.No.638/2021 and Crl.Misc.No.715/2021, wherein,
also anticipatory bail granted in favour of other accused.
12. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, further
relied upon the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition
No.6935/2018 (M.J. Devaraj v. State of Karnataka).
13. This Court in the similar circumstances in a case of
Food Adulteration invoked the discretion by exercising the
powers under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., and comes to the
conclusion that the allegation in the complaint is that the milk
product has been adulterated, which is a matter to be considered
and appreciated at the time of trial. The offences are not
punishable with death of imprisonment for life and also taken
note of the earlier order passed by the Trial Court while granting
the bail, the petitions are liable to be rejected.
14. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal
of the material available on record, these two respondents are
arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 3. At the first instance, accused
No.3 was not arraigned as an accused and later he was
arraigned as an accused. The specific allegation against accused
No.1 is that he had indulged in using of different vehicles for
transportation of milk and he has violated the terms and
conditions of the transport contract and the offences committed
by misusing the milk collected from BMC Centers and also
indulged in adulterating the milk. Only after issuance of notice
against accused No.3, he has been arraigned as an accused. No
doubt, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State would submit that the matter was referred
under investigation to CID and no permission for change of
vehicle is also taken and there was a separate water and milk
secret compartment. But in the cases on hand, bail has been
granted and the Trial Court while granting bail made an
observation that in order to terminate the contract, the cases are
registered.
15. Apart from that, the Trial Court also given the reason
that the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment
for life. No doubt, the offences are not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, normally; Courts will grant bail exercising
the discretion since the offences are triable by the Magistrate.
When such being the factual aspects of the case, the Trial Court
would exercise its discretion while granting bail.
16. Having considered the offences and the seriousness
of the allegations and mere referring the matter to CID is not a
ground to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. Whether there was a
violation of contract or indulged in adulteration of milk and
collected the bills from different persons and authority from
where the chemical was purchased and the same is also an
appreciation of material on record during the course of trial.
When such being the case, I do not find any reasons to invoke
and exercise the powers under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. It is
also settled law that granting of bail must be considered and
dealt with on different basis and so also cancellation of bail must
be considered and dealt with on different basis. When such
being the settled principle of law, the Court has to take note of
the same, hence, I do not find any merit in the petitions to
invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the bail when the
Trial Court has exercised its discretion considering the nature of
offences and allegations.
17. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The cancellation of bail petitions are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
