Gujarat High Court
Rajendra Babulal Malu (Trademark ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 21 February, 2013
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
RAJENDRA BABULAL MALU (TRADEMARK OWNER)....Applicant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT R/CR.MA/6064/2008 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6064 of 2008 ================================================================ RAJENDRA BABULAL MALU (TRADEMARK OWNER)....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR BN LIMBACHIA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR DK MODI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS JIRGA D JHAVERI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR KP RAVAL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI Date : 21/02/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is original accused No.4 in the Criminal Case lodged by second respondent in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandevi for the alleged offences against various accused under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ( for short the Act ).
2. The petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short Cr.P.C. ) urging to quash the said complaint being Criminal Case No.648 of 2007 on the ground that the petitioner is neither a manufacturer nor a seller of the food articles concerned but he is merely a lender of trade name to the seller by virtue of the agreement produced at Annexure B to this petition.
3. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no dispute on the fact that the petitioner is not a manufacturer or a seller of the food article in question. It is also not disputed that he is lender of trade name to the seller. In the context of the above admitted position, Sections 7 and 16 of the Act are required to be referred to. While Section 7 prohibits a person either by himself or through any other person from manufacturing for sale or storing or selling or distributing any adulterated and/or misbranded food articles, Section 16 prescribes the penalties to be imposed if such persons are found guilty of the offences under the Act. Thus, the prohibition under Section 7 and the penalties under Section 16 would apply to only those persons who are described under the two provisions. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall in any such description. In almost similar circumstances, the Hon ble Apex Court in M/s.Pepsi Foods Limited and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749, while referring to the fact that the complaint merely showed that the appellants have given the brand name to Residency Foods and Beverages Ltd. for bottling the beverage Lehar Pepsi , and that the complaint did not show the role of the appellants in the manufacture of the beverage which is said to be adulterated and there being nothing on record to show that the appellants held the licence for manufacturing the beverages etc., quashed the complaint.
4. As noticed above, there is no material on record to prosecute the petitioner and therefore this is a fit case for this Court to exercise its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the complaint. The complaint being Criminal Case No.648 of 2007 lodged in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandevi insofar as petitioner is concerned, is quashed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) syed/ Page 3 of 3