Madan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6275 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2237/2021

Madan Lal S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 41 Years, Mundara, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Shrimali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

28/04/2022

1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Code"), the petitioner has challenged order dated 24.02.2021,

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Desuri, District

Pali (hereinafter referred to as the "revisional Court"), whereby

the order dated 30.06.2015, passed by learned Civil Judge and

Judicial Magistrate, Desuri, District Pali has been affirmed. By the

said order dated 30.06.2015, the trial Court had framed the

charges against the petitioner under Sections 420,482, 483,272,

273 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 102, 103, 104 of Trade

Marks Act, 1999.

2. Mr. Shrimali, learned counsel for the petitioner invited

Courts' attention towards the laboratory report dated 16.02.2010

and pointed out that the Public Analyst did not report the seized

article from the petitioner (ghee) to be noxious and therefore, the

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-2237/2021]

necessary ingredients under Section 272 of Indian Penal Code are

absent and thus, charges could not be framed against the

petitioner under Section 272/273 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is further contended that since, the Investigating Officer

has not indicated names of the persons, who had been cheated by

purchasing ghee sold by the petitioner, no offence under Section

420 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out.

4. In relation to the provisions under Sections 102, 103 and

104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Act of 1999"), it was contended that no person holding trade mark

of the goods has lodged any complaint and thus, the Court could

not have taken cognizance against the petitioner for the alleged

offences under the Act of 1999.

5. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court

rendered in case of Mohan Das Vs. State of Rajasthan reported

in (2021) 1 CrLR(Raj)184.

6. Mr. Singh, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the charges

have been framed by the trial Court after due consideration of the

material available on record and the revisional Court has dealt

with all the submissions and arguments advanced by the

petitioner in detail. Hence, this Court, in its limited jurisdiction

under Section 482 of the Code, should not interfere.

7. Joining the case on merit, learned counsel submitted that the

laboratory report dated 16.12.2010, clearly shows that the

product being manufactured and sold by the petitioner was not

even ghee. The petitioner was found storing and selling such

substance claiming it to be ghee and therefore, it is a clear case of

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-2237/2021]

cheating the people attracting Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian

Penal Code.

8. In relation to charges framed under Sections 272 and 273 of

the Indian Penal Code, learned Public Prosecutor argued that

maybe the laboratory report does not state the substance to be

noxious, but the fact that the sample drawn from petitioner's

possession was not even ghee, itself is sufficient to prosecute the

petitioner.

9. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the

Supreme Court dated 03.12.2019, rendered in the case of

Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam & (2020) 2SCC 217O and

submitted that the Apex Court in para No.14, 15, 16 of the

judgment has laid down that the Courts should only see the

possibility of commission of offence while framing the charges and

are not required to record detailed reasons or categorical findings

as to whether the offence has been committed or not.

10. Heard and perused the material available on record.

11. At this stage it would be relevant to advert to the contents of

the report dated 16.02.2010. The report of Public Analyst is

reproduced hereunder:-

" The above mentioned samples of Ghee, Marked "S1", "S3", "S4" and "S5" are not found to be of Ghee.

Sample of Ghee, marked "S2", conforms to the prescribed standards as laid down under item A 11.02.2015 of Appendix "B" of PFA Rules, 1955.

Sample of Refined Soyabean Oil, marked "S6" is adulterated as it does not conform to the prescribed Standards as laid down under item A 17.13 of Appendix B of PFA Rules, 1955.

And Sample of Vanaspati, marked "S7" is adulterated as it does not conform to the prescribed standards as laid down under item A19 of Appendix B of PFA Rules, 1955.

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-2237/2021]

Note:- Sample wise detailed results are enclosed herewith.

This Laboratory is responsible for the samples submitted to it for analysis.

Encl:- Examination sheet 1 to 7"

12. A look at the Analyst's Report and the documents enclosed

with the charge-sheet shows that the petitioner was

manufacturing and selling substance, which was not ghee. And

further that the petitioner was using labels of other recognised

companies.

13. The matter does not end here. A careful reading of the report

reveals that it is not confined to 'Ghee' as pointed out by Mr.

Shrimali- it deals with samples of refined Soyabean Oil and

Vanaspati Ghee as well. And the report in this regard clearly

shows that the samples did not conform to the prescribed

standards. Hence, the offences as alleged against the petitioner

are prima-facie made out. Maybe on ultimate analysis, the Court

may finally rule that the offence under the provisions of Section

272/273 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out but then, the

same has to be seen after due trial, particularly after the

statement of the Public Analyst.

14. So far as the judgment relied upon by Mr. Shrimali, in the

case of Mohan Das (supra) is concerned, the facts of the present

case are clearly distinguishable from the facts involved in the case

of such Mohan Das (supra). In the case of Mohan Das (supra), the

offence alleged by the Investigating Officer was that of Section

272 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 63 and 65 of the

Copyright Act, 1957. The report of Public Analyst in the case of

Mohan Das was that the goods were mis-branded, therefore, in

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-2237/2021]

absence of any report of the ghee being noxious, a coordinate

Bench of this Court has quashed the proceedings under Section

272/273 of the IPC.

15. In the present case, the allegation is not of mis-branding but

of manufacturing and selling a substance in the name of ghee

when as a matter of fact, the substance was not ghee.

16. The judgment relied upon by Mr. Shrimali, therefore, does

not apply to the facts of the present case.

17. It is to be noted that first charge framed against the

petitioner clearly makes reference of the complainant

Chandrashekhar who claims to have been cheated. Hence, it

cannot be said that offence under Section 420 is not made out.

18. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any

reason to interfere in the present petition and the petition,

therefore, fails.

19. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 185-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)