Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Tinker vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 April, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 20th OF APRIL, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 388 of 2017
Between:-
RAJKUMAR TINKER S/O P.C. TINKER , AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
QUALITY SSSURANCE MANAGER AND NOMINEE
HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. PTD.
PLOT NO. 169 175 AKVN INDUSTRIAL AREA
PILLUKHEDI, TEH-NARSINGHGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SARABVIR OBEROI AND SHRI ABHISHEK DILRAJ,
LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. JAGDISH
PRASAD LOVEWANSHI FOOD INSPECTOR FOOD
DRUG ADMINISTRATION HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI DILIP PARIHAR, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of proceedings initiated by the respondent against him, who at that point of time, was a Quality Assurance Manager and Nominee of Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.(for short "the company").
Learned counsel for the petitioner initially asked for time as Mr.S.C.Bagadiya, learned senior counsel was to appear from Indore to argue this matter. However, on account of connectivity issues, he could not be connected through video conferencing for the purpose of arguments. At this juncture, Mr.Sarabvir Oberoi and Mr.Abhishek Dilraj, learned counsels for the petitioner, jointly made submissions in this case. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, Signature Not Verified SAN the brief facts of the case are as follows :-
Digitally signed by POONAM MANEKARDate: 2022.04.23 13:28:25 IST The petition is preferred against the order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the 2 learned Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, in Criminal Revision No.400049/2016 dismissing the revision arising out of order dated 10.02.2016 passed by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad in Criminal Case No.1907/2010 by which the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against accused no.1-Vimal Kumar Meena, who thereafter appeared before the trial Court and took bail. On 13.10.2014, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C. to discharge him on various grounds. One of the grounds in the said application is that the Company has not been made a party and therefore, the prosecution again the nominee is not maintainable. The arguments were heard and on 14.05.2015 the learned Magistrate directed the complainant to give clarification about deletion of figure 4 and substitution of the word '}kjk'. In pursuance to this on 20.11.2015, the respondent gave clarification that he is not aware as to who deleted and substituted the above word. However, on perusing the copy of the complaint, the Company appears to have been made an accused at serial No.4.
Learned counsels for the petitioner have argued that the legal questions notwithstanding, on facts, no case is made out against any of the accused persons.
In this regard, learned counsels for the petitioner have drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-F, which is filed along with an application for raising additional grounds, which is I.A. No.4226/2020.
For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed and the documents have been taken into consideration.
Annexure-F is the form-VI, which is a report of the Analyst. The case is not one of adulteration but of mis-branding, which according to the respondent has occurred on account of the packaging date not being clear.
Learned counsels for the petitioner have vehemently argued that both the situations are different. The respondent itself has, by necessary implication, admitted that the packaging date was printed on the product but the same was not clear. They have argued that merely because the packaging date was not legible Signature Not Verified does not mean that the packaging date was not printed. They have further argued SAN Digitally signed by POONAM MANEKAR that in the process of transportation, the bottles being stacked together, on account Date: 2022.04.23 13:28:25 IST of friction from the movement of the bottles during transportation, in some of the 3 bottles, the packaging date may have got blurred or rendered illegible. The same reveals that the packaging dated was printed by the Company on the bottles, but on account of circumstance beyond the control of the Company, in the course of transportation, the same has resulted in blurring of the packaging date.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has drawn the attention of this Court to annexure-E to the petition, which is a copy of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 28.07.2014 in M.Cr.C. No.7622/2012 whereby in a similar case, the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that there too, it was a case where the date of manufacture is not clearly mentioned on the bottle of Thumps-up that was seized from the shop.
To this, learned counsels for the petitioner have drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.9 of the said judgment where the learned Co-ordinate Bench held that the case deserved to be dismissed as admittedly "the date of manufacturing is not mentioned on any of the bottle clearly".
Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that the argument was never placed before the learned Co-ordinate Bench that the law requires the presence of a packaging date. Once it is not disputed that the packaging date has been printed but the same is illegible will not bring it under the ambit and scope of an offence under Section 2(ix)(k) and 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 32 read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
The submissions put forth by learned counsels for the petitioner are plausible, as the case of the respondent is that the date of packaging is not clear and is different from the packaging date not being printed at all. The arguments put forth by the learned counsels for the petitioner that the same having been rendered illegible in the course of transportation due to friction of moving bottles within the crate cannot be excluded.Signature Not Verified SAN
Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the rule of law is that man is not liable for an effect, which was beyond his control enumerated in the Digitally signed by POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2022.04.23 13:28:25 IST 4 maxim lex non cogit ad impossiblia. Once compliance has been established meaning thereby where the packaging date was printed, merely because that has been rendered illegible on later date, is a situation in which the petitioner cannot be held guilty.
Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed and further proceedings in Criminal Case No.1907/2010 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad is quashed as against the petitioner herein.
With the above, this petition is finally disposed of.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE pnm Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2022.04.23 13:28:25 IST