Karnataka High Court
G Shrinivas Krishna vs Food Inspector Hubli-Dharwad ... on 22 April, 2009
Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das
IN THE HIGH coup: or KARuAmi<%A%;'j%%}%%% CIRCUIT BENCH AT.»D_HARWADi:'.';V» ': " V DATED THIS THE 22"" :IZ)4AY:'C3!F-'§'AéI'-'R'IL',,.:2§):OV§"-.. "5.j . »me HON' BLE MR. ms CRIMINAi§._;E?;_.;"_:I_1;_§f@%l_'§;;C_};;.$§32.0_[2006 Bgsm 1 G.SHRINNé$'§§.'?I'SH §iA,€:. % "ms senaagnmaaaaeea, A HINDUSTAN 'CC5%CA-COLAv.BEV'ERA?GES PRIVATE =.%.m%1'rs'£5e, = PLQT'-NG¢i'3," BIDADI mousm:ALA,-z§A,%sz%pAp1, RAMANAGAR TALUK, BANGALORE 91$-ATa1cr;*kT%% :PETITIONER (BY;'*v}AS§I;-MAG1AN}tNE$, sa. COUNSEL FOR SR1'a:.RAMACHAN'DP..A..A' MALI 3. SRI.S.R.AMBLI AND % kA .SR'I.B.'Vf.SHANKARA NARAYANA mo, ADVOCATES) F609 msnacfroa, HUBLI-'DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, %a_u3L1;L " :RESPONDENT
_(ay7sRI.9Ir¢£sH r~1.:<uL:<Aa;m & SRI.N.P.SINGRI, ADVS.) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING T0 QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED.7.6.06 IN mwf' HUB-LI.
C.C.NO.852/O6 on: THE FILE o1= THE m:c.:: 0co::ar, THIS PETITION HAVIM; BEEN:RtssERvE.o}:=oa ORDERS ON 25.03.2009, :COMIN'('::3__ --~.v0.N",_"'~..F€)R PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY THE . 0. 0 counzwaouoiwmceooo THE FOLLOWING: 0 V e ' 00 This petition is to quash the order dated §Q?.V0:6.O6::A_tn ~o;o52,2o°5 oassed by mrc 11 Court at offence and issuing of
2.' Petlitohaor No.4 and respondent is the4foomplaioa'n.t_V_Vbofoa?§a the Trio! Court. In this judgment, °"fof'0'co:i"{?tan§:en;e, the parties are referred to their status o'---oéforé t!fie.,ff'rE.xa:v'§v.€?.'ourt. is the case of prosecution that accused No.1 its: seam coid drinks and snacks in the extension counter at'; Ponchasheeia Hotel near Unkal Lake, Hubli City.
""V.}\ocused No.2 is the owner and licensee of the extension counter at Panchasheeia Hotei. Accused No.3 is the dwv distributor of cold drinks called "Thums its office and godown at Hubli City. Fourtnpleccuigedp this General Manager of M/s.Hlndiletan"Coca-:col.a"«i?;ejiera'§es Wt. Ltd. Situated at Bldedi ileum: terse," saisgtim engaged in manufacture cold 'lThunie
4. On 1s.o3.loa1a;t'l one Mr.Feyaz Ahmed Shelklfifor and his family had been to the:lelttenslcjni'jeohnflh%?f~Panchasheela Hotel and placed -drink of "Thums Up". The first Up cold drink manufactured, peftiked enVd"'di.:stribu:ted under Batch No.19o2os, 15-51, B complainant FA. Sheikh on opening the seal ._ Thums Up bottle, it was found inside the bottlelione' pack of gutka and the wrapper of the gutka at peflckieads as "Goa Gutlca". Immediately, the said F.A. '3.VVSheikh informed the same to the hotel owner, to the control room of Hubli Dharwad Mahanagara Pelike (for short, HDMC) Authorities etc. On the complaint given by F.A. Shelkh, the officials of HDMC visited the Panchasheela we Hotel, seized the contaminated bottle and drawn a panchanama. After investigation, the Food Insteector of HDMC at Hubli filed a complaint before the'_:'j'u'ris;ijctierw Judiciai Magistrate at Hubli in QC. for>;the»a\V offence punishabie under 41'6(;i)'__V(e}_:'of Prevention of Food Adultes'-ation Act'). Under the impugned' order,'--- jtgflsdictional Magistrate had taken:4_cegn1'eance:<of.V,t'he_offenAce and issued the process. Aii the petitioner herein have before the jurisdictional Magistretecourtftc' Tifiaiiiieetltioner who is accused No.4 b"e'§:j'oree..theV fieeietratie Court has flied the present petition proceedings in C.C. No.852/06 in so far as , _petstioéercsexncerned.
~~ V Srmaganand, iearned Senior Counsei for the A u_a:cc'§ised No.4 contends that the aiiegation made in the 'complaint before the Trial Court do not constitute an offence punishable under S.7(i) and 16(i)(a) of the PF Act. It is centended that the seized soft drink Thurrxs Up bottie rt/ex» 25/ was not subjected to chemical analysis as requi're_dhi3~n'der the PF Act and the Rules. No evidence is 4_ to show that the seized soft d__rinl<_was'; the accused No.4. Even the sanctioning 'a~uthc{ritVy::V'he.s':vnot it applied his mind to pro'secutev- lithe' No.ii.i' Therefore, learned V__SeniorV_...:Counsel co'ntend:-5 that the proceedings before 1r'_:_'iV?:3'i:. 'C:o:j;rt'i--..aVre liable to be quashed. Relisnvce isrpisced Von.':>t.he.foll.owing decisic.ns:-
(2ocs}sl3 .VV(AJAAY"M1'i'RA ~--Vs-- STATE or Amos-ms) _ _ (1éss)%'s.s;:c'~:?4s'iil §>.'(Aj-99x2) §UP%"eEMENT (1) scc 335 it contra, Srl.£)inesh M. Kulkarni, learned Cotlnsel' -for the complainant contends that the power nU;n_der"S:ec.482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised in rarest of rare ":_Vc'as=es and in exceptional circumstances. In the instant
-~~case, there is necessary pleading stating that petitioner is the manufacturer of the soft drink in question. Further, the batch number under which the soft drink in question aw was manufactured, packed and distributed is speciflceiiy stated in the petition. It is further contendegi"fthetiiethe seized soft drink one pack of gutke was found. face of it, the same was unfit for"'h*u«m_a;%i T. the same amounts to an offeiice~A«A_punishsbie uniieriivithe provisions of PFA Act. It isficontended' --thet isithoiut subjecting the seized...soft'..drini§'--fo"r._cherni'cei analysis, the prosecution can prove__'the.§7'chargef_»ieveiied against the petitioner. _ 3'; ' on both the side and perused the entire petition
18. " .S'ec.482- Cr.P.C. specifies the inherent powers _o'f.{thi.s.Court. the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not what is meant by inherent powers. But Ath;rou§h':vi'seirerai judiciai pronouncements, the Supreme AA Coufifitheid as to when the High Court can exercise the
- inherent powers. If the High Court is setisfled that "there is miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of Court or the required provisions had not been compiied with or to :1 L 'K, secure the ends of justice, in that event, it is butrthbe duty of Court to have it corrected at the inceptionAV..hir its inherent powers. But this inherent eheil'xnot"_fbe exercised as a matter of rule bait "e;:r._ei).tio;n.'.-A:iVii§4.,._ s'perin'gIy' it and in rarest of rare cases. "i\iow I he"vfe" to ei§am'i'ne whether there exists any e3§eVeptionvei'----circuiinsteriiceiiin this case for exercising the_ inhereniipower.
9. The material ¥.ori{_' ;record" discloses that on
18.Q'3'.%OE';.e.o?ne his family had been to a hoteiarid piizcg-:$;tarcsafifs a cold soft drink of Thorns Up.
The _first""ec.cu.sedthee:-giiiied Thums Up cold drink and on the sernegit was found that in the soft drink, one V An innocent customer complained to the it euthorities to take further action. At this stage, thereis no reason for suspecting the complaint made by .V:ari~«_.innocent customer. It is only after the evidence is recorded, the Court can come to a conciusion on the merits of the case.
gee»
10. It is not in dispute that theiisoftjs'%iinnicr.iv'inp question was not subjected __to__che;*nica'i:'.ja'ne!§fsis*-._as. specified in the provisions of the i?_'_F a prosecution may prove the*---._charg'e: ieveiled«:._;avgeinst the accused even withoot subjecting the so'ft"di1_ni<J:in question for chemical analysisfin the provisions of PF Act, it isanot seized material has to be When a customer places expects that it will not contain brriater_ial.-' But in the instant case, in the soft suppl--ied..Vto.4ithiecomplainant, it was found that it contained a"'fo_relgn "material. The presence of a foreign Tln«.._Vthe soft drink supplied to the complainant I :_Varnou'n4ts..s,tosiolation of provisions of PF Act is a matter of ev<i.den'ce;.A«:"'Be that as it may, under 5.482 Cr.P.C., it is not .._o;rope"ri'or this Court to screen or assas the material on it {record at this stage and to conclude that the charge cannot 'V proved against the accused merely because the soft drink in question is not suspected to chemicai analysis. It is always open for the parties before the Trial Court to €;\\/,\W,x justify their respective stands and to establish...t.h_e:sa'i7rte by placing acceptable legal evidence. stage, by only accepting parties, without providinggban opoort'u.nity to';leed"
shall not conciude on the""c4t1Tfi'erltsv. sin the circumstances, I do 1,ettceptiontaltcircumstances in this case to tlis.sfet.ione.ry power and to quash the pr'oceedings befor'ethe~Tti_afi Court. :""i'1;D:v:ffhe:?con:t'ent!onA"of"the petitioner that there is nothvingt on to implicate the petitioner inthe p'roceedl,n'VgsA'btefo':re the Trlai Court and therefore, the {lTi0Ci?l?d§~nAQS AA-':V't"!'7ev*~--~i--table to be quashed is unacceptable to V bottle in question, the manufacturers .ls'e:'Ips:inted as Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd;,j"Piot No.80, Bidacli Indl. Area, Bangalore ---- 90. so;-ther, it is also printed that the Thurns up cold drink in question is manufactured, packed and distributed under Batch No. 190206, 16-51, B No.31B. Petitioner is the Genera: Manager of the manufacturing company. To this Owe.
10 effect, there is pieading and materiai on record. The Trlai Court whiie taking cognizance of the offence,"co:ris§dered the pleading and materiai on record and that there is prima facie case::;o"i:n,I..A it --'.ei\nie'ys'i open for the petitioner to Vjustii'yV__t:§.éAeir defence acceptable evidence on Without any' opinion on the meriteof thAe-*eee_e,"I-»e.m of the dpinion that, the Trial Court nghtigr conciudeid stage that there is prime faciecase_an(§AVVhedf;tai§en"eodnieence of the offence. Therefore,V.i'VfiVn'd::L:noo'jeetifiable ground to interfere with the Imnuenfifi iorderf " » 133.2'; Thedécvisions reiied on by the ieerned senior V petitioners are not appiicable to the facts the case.
= 'dismissed.
vV'"For the reasons stated above, the petition is hereby Sd/9 Judge"
sac*