Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Raj Kumar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 12 November, 2025
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:44991]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1797/2013
Raj Kumar Sharma S/o Kailash Chand, resident of Ward No. 15,
Reengus, District Sikar.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent
Connected With
(2) S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1799/2013
Naresh Kumar Vadhwani S/o. Tulsi Ram Vadhwani, resident of
Ward No. 15, Reengus, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District Sikar.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioners : Mr. Tanmay Dhand Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Sharma Public Prosecutor.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment REPORTABLE RESERVED ON :: 06.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :: 12.11.2025
1. Cause of action and questions involved in both criminal misc. petitions are, more or less, similar, hence, with the consent of the parties, both the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners, who are retailers and engaged in sale and purchase of pure ghee, have challenged common order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 05:21:18 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:29:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44991] (2 of 12) [CRLMP-1797/2013] Srimadhopur, District Sikar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19/2013 and 18/2013 filed by the petitioners respectively whereby revision petitions filed by the petitioners have been partly allowed as well as order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Srimadhopur, District Sikar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Case No. 703/2010, whereby the trial court directed to frame charges of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC') and Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1954') against the petitioners, has also been challenged with a further prayer to quash the proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 703/2010 titled as State Vs. Ajay Dayma pending before the trial court.
3. It is stated that Food Inspector, Enforcement Officer and SHO, Police Station Reengus, District Sikar, on 30.09.2009, inspected the premises of the petitioners and purchased Mawa Pure Ghee weighing one liter. Such purchased ghee were treated as sample and after sealing the same in a bottle, it was forwarded to Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis and in its report, the Public Analyst found Mawa Pure Ghee to be adulterated. Accordingly, FIR No. 311/2009 was registered at Police Station Reengus, District Sikar for commission of offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 420 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against manufacturer Ajay Dayma, Director of M/s. Rajasthan Milk Food Products as also the retailers-petitioners, namely, Raj Kumar Sharma, Naresh Kumar Vadhwani and other (Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 05:21:18 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:29:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44991] (3 of 12) [CRLMP-1797/2013] retailers for committing offences punishable under Sections 420 and 273 IPC as also Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. Thereafter, subsequent to taking cognizance against the petitioners, vide order dated 27.08.2012, the trial court directed for farming charges for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 273 IPC as also Section 7/16 of Act of 1954 against the petitioners and other retailers. The petitioners challenged the order of framing charge dated 27.08.2012 by way of filing separate criminal revision petitions. Though, revision petitions were partly allowed by the revisional court vide common order dated 01.03.2013, the revisional court quashed charge framing order passed by the trial court under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 against the petitioners, yet the revisional court maintained order of framing charge by the trial court against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 273 and 420 IPC. So far as manufacturer Ajay Dayma is concerned, charge framed by the trial court against him even under Section 420 IPC has also been quashed by the revisional court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisional court has committed serious error of law and jurisdiction while passing impugned order dated 01.03.2013 for the reason that when charge for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 has been quashed by the revisional court, then maintaining the same against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 273 IPC is totally illogical and untenable in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that Section 273 IPC deals with sale of noxious food or drink. However, Special Act, i.e., the Act of 1954 has been enacted by the Legislature for (Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 05:21:18 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:29:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44991] (4 of 12) [CRLMP-1797/2013] prohibition of manufacturing, storing, sale or distribution of any adulterated or misbranded food as well as providing measures to prevent adulteration. Section 7 of the Act of 1954 provides for prohibitions of manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute any article of food which is prohibited. Thus, when charge framed by the trial court under the special statue has been quashed by the revisional court, maintaining the charge under the general provision of IPC dealing with same subject and offence is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioners.
5. It is also submitted that in the entire FIR, there is no allegation whatsoever that Mawa Pure Ghee kept for selling by the petitioners was noxious so as to cause danger to the life of human beings, if consumed. Even otherwise, on account of there being no allegations, material or evidence for making out any offence punishable under Section 273 IPC, the revisional court could not have maintained charge framed by the trial court for offence punishable under Section 273 IPC against the petitioners in ignorance of the provisions of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are simply retailers and admittedly the seized goods were never manufactured by the petitioners. Indisputably, the manufacturer in the instant case was Ajay Dayma, who is Director of M/s. Rajasthan Milk Food Products where Mawa Pure Ghee is manufactured. The petitioners, being retailers, were supplied the ghee by the manufacturer. However, without there being any distinguishable feature, manufacturer Ajay Dayma has been granted benefit of quashing charge framed by the trial court against him for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC whereas the same has been maintained against the (Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 05:21:18 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:29:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44991] (5 of 12) [CRLMP-1797/2013] petitioners by the revisional court, which is not only discriminatory, but also misappreciation of provisions of law. It is submitted that in the entire FIR, there is no specific allegation suggesting any dishonest intention of the petitioners from the beginning or to cause any inducement to any other person for the purpose of undue gain or causing undue loss to any person. Hence, maintaining the order of charge framed by the trial court against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is totally baseless, unfounded and irrational findings have been recorded by the revisional court.
6. Per contra, criminal misc. petitions have been opposed by learned Public Prosecutor by submitting that offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 cannot be equated with the offence under Section 273 IPC and similarly, quashing of charge for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 would not, ipso facto, absolve the petitioners from offence committed by them under Section 273 IPC. It has further been submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that merely by stating that the petitioners are not manufacturers of seized Mawa Pure Ghee, no valid defence can be put forward by them as being vendors, they were ignorant of the nature, substance and quality of the food sold by them. It is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the seized ghee was shown to be pure ghee, which prompted the public at large to purchase the same treating it to be pure ghee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have not committed offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the material available on record.
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 05:21:18 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:29:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44991] (6 of 12) [CRLMP-1797/2013]
8. First and foremost submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the order for framing charge by the trial court for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 has been quashed by the revisional court itself, it has committed jurisdictional error in maintaining charge directed to be framed by the trial court against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 273 IPC, which is a general provision. It is not in dispute that special law shall always prevail over the general law. However, in order to examine the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 7 of the Act of 1954 and Section 272 and 273 IPC which read as under:
"7. Prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc., of certain articles of food.--No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute-
(i) any adulterated food;
(ii) any misbranded food;
(iii) any article of food for the sale of which a licence is prescribed, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence;
(iv) any article of food the sale of which is for the time being prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority 1[in the interest of public health;] 2[***]
(v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder;3
[or] 3 [(vi) any adulterant.] 3 [Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to store any adulterated food or misbranded food or any article of food referred to in clause
(iii) or clause (iv) or clause (v) if he stores such food for the manufacture there from of any article of food for sale.]
272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale.-- Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 05:21:18 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:29:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44991] (7 of 12) [CRLMP-1797/2013]
273. Sale of noxious food or drink.--Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
9. The Act of 1954 was enacted by the Legislature for prohibition of manufacture, storing, sale or distribution of any adulterated or misbranded food. The term 'adulterated' has been defined under Section 2(ia) of the Act of 1954, which is reproduced as under:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,--4
[(i) ..........5
[(ia)] "adulterated"--an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated--
(a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be;
(b) if the article contains any other substance which affects, or if the article is so processed as to affect, injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;
(c) if any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;
(d) if any constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;
(e) if the article had been prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions whereby it has become contaminated or injurious to health;
(f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, 1[***], rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect-infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption;
(g) if the article is obtained from a diseased animal;
(h) if the article contains any poisonous or other ingredient which renders it injurious to health;
(i) if the container of the article is composed, whether wholly or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious (Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 05:21:18 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:29:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44991] (8 of 12) [CRLMP-1797/2013] substance which renders its contents injurious to health;2
[(j) if any colouring matter other than that prescribed in respect thereof is present in the article, or if the amounts of the prescribed colouring matter which is present in the article are not within the prescribed limits of variability;]
(k) if the article contains any prohibited preservative or permitted preservative in excess of the prescribed limits;
3 [(l) if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, but which renders it injurious to health;
(m) If the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health:
Provided that, where the quality or purity of the article, being primary food, has fallen below the prescribed standards or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability, in either case, solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this sub-clause.
Explanation.--Where two or more articles of primary food are mixed together and the resultant article of food--
(a) is stored, sold or distributed under a name which denotes the ingredients thereof; and
(b) is not injurious to health, then, such resultant article shall not be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this clause;"
10. So far as Section 272 IPC is concerned, the same deals with adulteration of food or drink so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such articles as food and drink. Further, Section 273 IPC deals with sale of noxious food or drink. Thus, when Section 7 of the Act of 1954, Section 272 as also Section 273 IPC are compared after examining the definition of term, 'adulterated' as provided in the Act of 1954, it becomes clear that the adulterated food also includes any article which (Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 05:21:18 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:29:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44991] (9 of 12) [CRLMP-1797/2013] contains any poisonous or other ingredient which renders it injuries to health and similarly, Sections 273 IPC prohibits sale of such adulterous food product which makes the article noxious. The provisions of the Act of 1954 are wider in scope and amplitude. Sections 273 IPC simply bars selling of noxious product whereas the provisions of the Act of 1954 are covering the field of not only sale, but also of manufacture, storing and distribution of any adulterated, poisonous and misbranded food. The term, 'noxious' used in Section 273 IPC also means the poisonous product which is covered under the definition of term 'adulterated' as prescribed in Section 2(ia) of the Act of 1954. Under these circumstances, where the petitioners have been granted benefit of quashing charge framed by the trial court under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954, there was no reason whatsoever to maintain the charge for offence punishable under Section 273 IPC against the petitioners. Thus, permitting prosecution of the petitioners under Section 273 IPC despite quashing of charge under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 would certainly amount to abuse of process of law and cause failure of justice to the petitioners.
11. At the stage of framing charge, the court is required to evaluate whether there is prima facie case against the accused based on the material on record. While doing so, the Court must also ensure that legal ingredients of the alleged offence are made out from the record and the charge should not be founded on conjectures or inadmissible evidence.
12. In the present matters, the learned trial court, while directing for framing charge under Section 273 IPC does not (Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 05:21:18 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:29:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44991] (10 of 12) [CRLMP-1797/2013] appear to have examined whether the essential ingredients constituting the offence are existing or not. Section 273 IPC postulates that the accused must have sold or offered to sell any article of food or drink which is noxious or unfit for human consumption and such sale must be accompanied with knowledge or reason to believe that the article was noxious. Mere possession or sale of food subsequently found to be adulterated, without knowledge or belief of such product being noxious, cannot validly attract provisions of Section 273 IPC. The culpable mental element is a necessary constituent which cannot be presumed in absence of specific material on record. As reveals from the record, the petitioners have already been discharged of the charge under Section 7 of the Act of 1954, whereas provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1954 can be pressed into service irrespective of the ignorance pleaded by the vendor with regard to substance or quality of the goods, for the reason that such defence is not available under the Act of 1954 by virtue of Section 19 of the said Act. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have been discharged of charges having much broader range, ample scope and amplitude under the Act of 1954 and, therefore, in the absence of any material before the trial court demonstrating the requisite knowledge or belief on the part of the petitioners with regard to food article being noxious or unsafe, order of framing charge under Section 273 IPC on the same allegation cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
13. In the case of Ram Nath Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2012 decided (Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 05:21:18 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:29:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44991] (11 of 12) [CRLMP-1797/2013] on 21.02.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that Section 273 IPC incorporates requirements of knowledge or reasonable belief that the food or drink sold or offered for sale is noxious. As noticed above, there was no such material in the present cases before the trial court revealing any such knowledge or belief on the part of the petitioners. Hence, quite evidently charge under Section 273 IPC is not made out against the petitioners.
14. It is also settled that for the purpose of prosecuting a person for committing offence under Section 420 IPC, the FIR or complaint should be specific in its contents and the allegations must disclose in unambiguous term that the accused had dishonest intention from the beginning to deceive any person fraudulently so as to cause inducement in such manner that on account of such inducement, the other person has received such property/article, which has caused damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property and there is some undue gain or undue loss. In the instant case, nothing has been mentioned in the entire FIR so as to make out a case of cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC which offence is punishable under Section 420 IPC. Therefore, maintaining the charge directed to be framed by the trial court for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC against the petitioners, who are retailers, while absolving the manufacturer at the same time, is wholly illogical or irrational on the part of the revisional court.
15. In the light of above, impugned order dated 01.03.2012 passed by the revisional court as well as order dated 27.08.2012 (Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 05:21:18 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:29:52 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44991] (12 of 12) [CRLMP-1797/2013] passed by the trial court are quashed and set aside and the petitioners are discharged of the allegations levelled against them for offence punishable under Section 420 and 273 IPC and Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1954.
16. Both criminal misc. petitions are, accordingly, allowed.
17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
18. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of connected petition.
(ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI / (Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 05:21:18 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:29:52 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)