Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gulabchand Modi vs State Of M.P. on 5 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)MPHT394
ORDER S.K. Pande, J.
1. By this petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC, petitioner requests for quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 907/88 pending in the Court of CIM, Hoshangabad.
2. Petitioner is a retailer and having purchased 100 sealed tins of Soyabean Oil from Dinesh Traders, Siyaganj, Indore under warranty, stored it for sale. The Food Inspector on 31-8-87 opening the sealed tin obtained the sample for analysis. A part of sample was sent to the public analyst and as per report it was found adulterated. At the time of taking sample from the petitioner, the bill dated 11 -8-87 containing warranty was handed over to the Food Inspector. On enquiry Dinesh Traders disclosed that the Soyabean Oil was manufactured by Gujarat Co-operative Oil Seeds and Growers Federation, Bhavnagar, Gujarat. Acomplaint under Section 7/16-P.F.A. Act accordingly has been filed against the petitioner Gulabchand Modi, Dinesh Traders Siyaganj, Indore. Since the appearance of Dinesh Traders could not have been secured, the case before Magistrate proceeded against the petitioner Gulabchand Modi only. The Food Inspector was examined on 21-12-2001 and on the basis of statement aforesaid charge under Section 7/16 P.F.A. Act has been framed against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred the revision against the aforesaid order passed by CJM in Cr. Case No. 907/88. However, affirming the order to proceed with the trial passed by CJM, ASJ, Hoshangabad dismissed Cr. Revision No. 83/2002 vide order dated 7-8-2002.
3. It has been contended that after taking of sample, a complaint (Annexure A) has been filed before the Court enclosing Panchnama (Annexure B) and the cash memo dated 11-8-87 of Dinesh Traders (Annexure C). From Annexures C and B itself the case of warranty under Section 19 of the P.F.A. Act has been made out. Therefore, the complaint should not have been filed against the petitioner. It is further contended that in the statement of Food Inspector (Annexure D), sufficient material has come on record to demonstrate that 100 sealed tins of Soyabean Oil was purchased by the petitioner from Dinesh Traders, Siyaganj, Indore under the warranty scribed in cash memo dated 11-8-87. Further the sealed tins were stored by petitioner in the same condition and breaking the seal of one of the tin, the sample was obtained by the Food Inspector. The wrapper of tins disclosed the name of manufacturer of Soyabean Oil. The Food Inspector R.P. Singh with reference to cash memo dated 11-8-87 (Annexure C) visited the shop of Dinesh Traders, Siyaganj, Indore for verification of the fact. It was disclosed by Dinesh Traders that the aforesaid Soyabean oil in sealed tins was sold by him under the warranty (Annexure C) to the petitioner. Gujarat Co-operative Oil and Seeds Growers Federation, Bhavnagar was its manufacturer.
4. From the statement of Food Inspector R.P. Singh (P.W. 1) (Annexure D) itself the petitioner was successful to demonstrate that he purchased the aforesaid Soyabean Oil under a written warranty (Annexure C) from Dinesh Traders, Siyaganj, Indore. On each tins the name of the manufacturer Gujarat Co- operative Oil Seeds and Growers Federation, Bhavnagar, Gujarat was scribed. The tins were kept, sealed in same condition and from one of the tin by breaking the seal, sample was obtained by Food Inspector. Petitioner a retailer having purchased the aforesaid Soyabean Oil under warranty, is entitled to benefit of defence under Section 19 of the P.F.A. Act. As such framing of charge against him can not be said to be justified. Instead, he deserves a discharge under Section 7/16 of P.F.A. Act. Directing trial of the petitioner under Section 7/16, P.F.A. Act would be a futile exercise and abuse of process of Court.
5. Consequently, petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC succeeds. The proceedings in Cr. Case No. 907/88 pending before the CJM, Hoshangabad accordingly are quashed as against the petitioner Gulabchand Modi.