Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gaurav And Another vs State Of Punjab on 28 September, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
Criminal Misc No.M-4022 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc No.M-4022 of 2012
Date of decision: 28.9.2012
Gaurav and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Mohd.Sameem and Mr.Anshuman Mandhar, Advocates
for the petitioners.
Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab
****
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
Petitioners Gaurav and Ajay Kumar have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of First Information Report No.25 dated 03.02.2005, registered at Police Station Malerkotla, under Sections 420, 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992.
Brief facts of the case are that the SHO Police Station Malerkotla received a secret information that Ajay Kumar and Gaurav petitioners were preparing desi ghee after mixing chemicals for selling the same to the public. On the basis of this secret information the impugned FIR was registered against the present petitioners. A raid was conducted at the premises of the petitioners. The petitioners were apprehended while Criminal Misc No.M-4022 of 2012 2 preparing spurious desi ghee. Ten tins, each weighing 14.500 Kgs. were recovered. Three samples of 250 grams each were taken out from each tin. The contraband articles were taken into possession. The petitioners were arrested on the spot. Ten samples were sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh and the samples were found to be adulterated. The prosecution sanction Annexure P.2 was accorded by the District Magistrate Sangrur as required under section 29 of the Order. Challan against the accused petitioners was presented in Court on 3.9.2005.
The charge (Annexure P.3) was framed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla on 01.06.2010. The present petitioners filed criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, which was dismissed.
In the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the registration of impugned FIR; framing of charge and order of dismissal of revision petition by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur.
The State contested this petition by filing reply by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malerkotla.
Learned senior counsel argued that even if the whole case of the prosecution is taken its face value, the ingredients of an offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted. He further argued that Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code also cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned senior counsel further challenged the procedure regarding drawing of samples.
Criminal Misc No.M-4022 of 2012 3
The learned State counsel argued that this petition has been filed under the guise of second revision as the first revision filed by the accused petitioners before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur has been dismissed. He argued that this petition is not maintainable as the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence.
I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the State Counsel and perused the record with their able assistance.
At this stage, the allegations of the prosecution are to be taken at its face value. No meticulous examination of the documents and facts are to be done by this Court while exercising its discretion under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lest it may not cause any prejudice to either of the parties during trial. The allegations against the petitioners are of very serious nature. As per prosecution case, they were found to be preparing spurious desi ghee from chemicals. People purchases the food believing it to be pure, but the unscrupulous traders are bent upon to sell adulterated food to earn more and more money at the cost of health of the people. The disputed question of facts are involved in this case. The allegations against the petitioners are serious.
In para no.9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manjula Sinha vs State of U.P. 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl) 778 held as under:-
" 9. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound Criminal Misc No.M-4022 of 2012 4 principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case, where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See: Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC
305), and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1)]."
Admittedly, the charge sheet has been filed in Court; charges have been framed; revision against the framing of the charge has also been dismissed by the revisional court and now in this petition, this court will not exercise its discretion in quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings, especially when judicial mind has already been applied; prima facie case has been found against both the petitioners and prosecution has to lead its evidence to prove guilt of the accused. The petitioners are being tried as per the law and procedure established by law and it is not abuse of process of law. So, this petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. Criminal Misc No.M-4022 of 2012 5
As this Court has not gone into the legal points raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, so, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the points during trial at appropriate stage as permitted by law.
Both the petitioners are directed to appear before the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, on 12.11.2012 at 10 AM.
28.09.2012. ( Jitendra Chauhan) sk Judge