Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rohit Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.Cr.C. No. 14294/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14294 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
ROHIT JAIN, S/O PUSHPENDRA JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS, R/O PANNA ROAD,
CHHATARPUR, DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH GULATEE- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH P.S. KOTWALI, CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI GAJENDRA PARASHAR- PANEL LAWYER)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashment of FIR registered in Crime No. 19/2021 by Police Station
Kotwali, District Chhatarpur for offence under Section 420 of IPC.
2. It is the prosecution case that an information was received that
adulterated Mawa is being brought and accordingly an eye was kept on
the bus stand. The applicant came on Bus No. M.P.16 P 0362 along with
24 packets of Mix Cake Food of New Radhika Brand. On every packet
neither the lot number was mentioned nor the packaging date was
mentioned and photograph of a sweet was printed on the label and
accordingly, it was found that the Mawa appears to be adulterated.
Accordingly, the samples were collected and remaining Mawa was
handed over to the police. The total weight of the Mawa was 43 kg.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that even if the entire
allegations are accepted, still it is clear that no offence under Section
420 of IPC is made out. In fact if any offence is made out, then it would
be under The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for
the State.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The moot question for consideration is as to whether when an
eatable product is found to be adulterated, then whether an offence
under Section 420 of IPC would also be made out or not?
7. The said aspect has been taken note of by this Court by order
dated 01.04.2021 passed in the case of Manish Gupta Vs. State of
M.P. in M.Cr.C. No.11462/2021 (Gwalior Bench) and has held as
under:-
"In the present case, it is not the case of the
applicant that any penalty has already been imposed
on him. Further, the offence has also been registered
under Sections 420 and 272 of IPC. It is not the case
of the applicant that he had already displayed in his
shop that adulterated or substandard milk is sold. It is
the defence of the applicant that the milk was not kept
for the purpose of sale but it was a sapreta after
manufacturing of milk products. According to the FIR,
he is running a Milk Dairy. The applicant has not
produced any licence to show that he is competent to
produce any milk product. Further, it would be a
defence of the applicant that the sample which has
been collected, was not a milk but it was a sapreta and
it was not meant for sale. Further, the applicant has
not clarified as to why he had kept the sapreta in his
shop, specifically when according to him, the same
was not meant for sale. Further, it is not the case of the
prosecution as well the applicant that it was displayed
by the applicant that the so-called milk/sapreta was
not meant for sale. Selling any adulterated or
substandard product to the innocent customers by
projecting that the said product is a pure and safe for
human consumption, would certainly be an offence
under Section 420 of IPC.
So far as the offence under Section 272 of IPC is
concerned, the defence of the applicant that the milk
was not kept for sale, cannot be accepted at this stage.
If the milk/sapreta was not meant for sale, then he
should not have kept the same in the shop and should
have kept somewhere else or should have destroyed.
Prima facie, it is clear that the sample of milk which
has been collected by the Officer, was meant for sale,
and it was not sapreta as claimed by applicant.
So far as the contention of the Counsel for the
applicant that since the Act, 2006 is a complete Act in
itself which provides for separate procedure for
penalty is concerned, the Counsel for the applicant
could not point out any provision of the Act, 2006
which bars the applicability of provisions of General
Criminal Law or IPC.
The Act, 2006 merely provides for penalties for
contravening the provisions of the Act, 2006, whereas
the offence under Sections 420 and 272 of IPC are
different from the provisions of the Act, 2006. In
absence of any bar under the Act, 2006, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the Police is well within
its right to resort to the provisions of IPC.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Rameshwar and Others,
reported in (2009) 11 SCC 424 has held as under:-
''48. Mr. Tankha's submissions, which
were echoed by Mr. Jain, that the M.P. Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960 was a
complete Code in itself and the remedy of
the prosecuting agency lay not under the
criminal process but within the ambit of
Sections 74 to 76 thereof, cannot also be
accepted, in view of the fact that there is no
bar under the M.P. Co-operative Societies
Act, 1960, to take resort to the provisions of
the general criminal law, particularly when
charges under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, are involved.
49. The judgments referred to by Mr.
Tankha regarding the tendency to convert
civil disputes into criminal cases to
pressurize the accused, are unimpeachable,
but the same will not apply to the facts of
this case where a conspiracy to cheat the
Bank is alleged.''
Where the innocent consumers are being cheated
by selling adulterated or substandard or unfit eatables,
then this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution of the applicant for offence under Sections
420 and 272 of IPC is permissible. It is not the case of
the applicant that he has already been punished under
the Act, 2006. Thus, the bar as contained under
Section 26 of General Clauses Act would not apply.
Considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no case is made out for
quashing the FIR in Crime No.13/2021 registered at
Police Station Bairad, District Shivpuri for offence
under Sections 420, 272 of IPC and under Sections 51,
26(2)(ii) of the Act, 2006. Accordingly, the
application fails and is hereby dismissed."
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case is duly
covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of Manish Gupta
(supra).
9. Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Interim order dated 02.11.2023 is hereby vacated.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AL
Date: 2024.03.12 17:49:22 +05'30'
