Bhanwar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5328 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5328 Raj
Judgement Date : 11 April, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bhanwar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 April, 2022

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

(1 of 4) [CRLMP-1508/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1508/2022

1. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Dhanraj, Aged About 72 Years, B/c Soni, R/o Pitra Kripa, P.w.d. Colony, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

2. Omprakash S/o Shri Mohanlal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o P.w.d. Colony, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pravin Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment

11/04/2022

The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioners herein seeking quashing of the proceedings of Criminal

Case No. 642/2011 registered for the offences under Sections 7

and 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and

Rule 50 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955

pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan.

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal the instant

misc. petition are noted hereinbelow:-

The Food Inspector, Jodhpur visited premises of M/s Shriram

International (Unit of Shriram Hotel), Residency Road, Ratanada,

Jodhpur on 29.04.2011, where he met Vikas Shrivastav (Seller &

General Manager). Food articles viz. vegetables, Rotis, Paneer

Pakoda etc. were being prepared and served to the public in the

hotel. The Food Inspector collected sample of food article Paneer

(cottage cheese) from the cold storage of the hotel. The sample of

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-1508/2022]

Paneer was divided into three parts, one of which was forwarded

to the Local Health Authority, Jodhpur for analysis from where, a

report dated 25.05.2011 was received to the effect that the food

article (Paneer) was adulterated. The Food Inspector thereafter,

collected details of the partners/directors of the firm M/s Shriram

International and was allegedly apprised that the petitioners

herein, Bhanwarlal and Omprakash were the

partners of the firm which was operating the hotel. Accordingly, a

complaint came to be filed by the Food Inspector in the court of

CMM, Jodhpur against the petitioners and few others with the

allegations that the accused persons being the directors/partners

of the firm were liable to be prosecuted for the offences under the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as well as under the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules as adulterated food article

Paneer was being sold to public from the firm's premises.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on

the ground that the petitioners are not connected with the day to

day affairs of the Firm and even a bare perusal of the complaint

goes to show that the petitioners have not been saddled with the

responsibility of conducting the day to day affairs of the Firm in

any manner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

prosecution against the petitioners is unwarranted. In support of

his contention, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners

has relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. Vs. Food Inspector &

Anr. : (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 176

2. Shyam Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2012 (2) CJ

(Crl.) (Raj.) 815

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-1508/2022]

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the complaint lodged

against the petitioners is totally bad in the eyes of law and

amounts to gross abuse of process of the Court and hence, the

same deserves to be quashed qua the petitioners. Learned Senior

Counsel further submits that in the identical set of the facts, this

Court vide order dated 09.12.2020 has quashed the proceedings

of the other petitioners named in the complaint in S.B. Criminal

Misc(Pet.) No. 931/2012.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand opposed the

submissions advances by the petitioners' counsel. He submits that

the grounds canvassed by the petitioners for quashing the

proceedings can be appreciated by the trial court after evidence is

recorded at the trial and not by this Court while exercising its

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned Public

Prosecutor however, very fairly submits that the facts narrated in

the complaint does not disclose the involvement of the present

petitioners in the day to day affairs of the Firm in question.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions

advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned complaint.

It is apparent that other than bare recital in para No.8 of the

complaint, which reads as below:-

"8- ;g gS fd ifjoknh [kk| fujh{kd us vuqla/kku ds nkSjku eSllZ eSllZ&Jhjke bUVjus"kuy] ;wfuV vkWQ Jh jke gksVy] jsftMsUlh jksM] jkrkukMk] tks/kiqj esa lgk;d vk;qDr okŒ dj foHkkx tks/kiqj ds i= Øekad [email protected]@[email protected] fnukad 28-07-2011 ds }kjk mDr QeZ esa lkr funs"[email protected] gksuk ik;k x;k] mDr ewy i= layXu ifjokn gSA"

There is not even a whisper in the entire body of complaint

that the petitioners herein, were in any manner responsible for the

day to day affairs of the firm in question. The accused No.1 Vikas

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-1508/2022]

Srivastava has been arraigned as the Seller and the General

Manager of the hotel and thus, he can be presumed to be the

person responsible for the day to day affairs thereof. Law is well

settled by a catena of judgments, some of which are referred to

supra, that in a prosecution under the Food Adulteration Act,

where the accused is a Company or a firm, there have to be

specific allegations supported by evidence that the

director/directors or partner/partners concerned who are sought