Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/334/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 334 of 2008
======================================
V
K SAXENA CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, IDBI LIMITED
Versus
K
R PATEL FOOD INSPECTOR & ANOTHER
======================================
Appearance :
MR
BHARAT JANI for the petitioner
Mr.
K.T. Dave, APP for the
respondents
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 20/08/2008 ORAL ORDER
1 Rule.
Mr. K.T. Dave, learned APP, waives service of Rule on behalf of the
State. At the request of the learned advocates appearing for the
parties, this application is taken up for final hearing today.
2 This
petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972,
[for short, ‘the Code’] is preferred by the petitioner, who was
appointed as Nominee of the Industrial Development Bank of India
Limited [IDBI] in the Company’s Board of Directors in May 2000, with
the following prayers in paragraph 14:
?S[A] This
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this Criminal Misc.
Application by quashing and setting aside the proceedings of Criminal
Case No.3783 of 2003 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad [Rural], Ahmedabad, so far as it
relates to the present petitioner;
[B] Pending
hearing, admission and final disposal of this application, this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings arising out
of Criminal Case No.3783 of 2003 pending in the Court of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad [Rural], Ahmedabad, qua
the petitioner.??
3 On
12th February 2008, when the present petition came up for
admission hearing, this Court [Coram: Honourable Ms. Justice H.N.
Devani], passed the following order:
?SHeard
Mr. B.G. Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner.
It
is submitted that the petitioner had been appointed as nominee of the
Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (IDBI) in the Company’s
Board of Directors in May, 2000. Subsequently, by communication dated
2.4.2002, the IDBI had decided to withdraw his nomination from the
Company’s Board. It is submitted that the offence in question is in
respect of adulteration in regard to the packet of lemon
water/powder, packed in August, 2002, which was seized on 21st
December, 2002, which is much after the date of withdrawal of the
appointment of the petitioner as nominee of the IDBI in the Company’s
Board. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the petitioner
ought not to have been arraigned as an accused for the commission of
the offence in connection with the sample of lemon water seized on
21st December, 2002.
Considering
the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner,
Notice returnable on 18th February, 2008. Ad
interim relief in terms of paragraph 14(B).
Mr.
I.M. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
notice on behalf of respondent No.2, State of Gujarat.
Direct
service is permitted qua respondent No.1.??
4 Heard
learned advocates for the parties and perused the record.
5 According
to the petitioner, the impugned complaint has been filed by
respondent No.1 for breach of the provisions of Sections 7(1) and
7(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on 11th
July 2003 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Court No.3, Ahmedabad [Rural], for the samples drawn by
respondent No.1, which confirms the date of manufacturing in the
month of August 2002 and necessary form was also filled in on 21st
December 2002, i.e. before when the IDBI had decided to withdraw
nomination of the petitioner from the Company’s Board of Directors.
Shri Bharat Jani, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended
that, initially also, when the petitioner was appointed, he was a
nominee in the Company’s Board of Directors and, before the alleged
incident which took place, the nomination of the petitioner as a
Director from the Company’s Board of Directors was already withdrawn
and, in that event, to continue the proceedings against the
petitioner would result into undue harassment and, therefore, this is
a fit case to invoke powers under Section 482 of the Code.
6 Mr.
K.T. Dave, learned APP appearing for the State, is unable to dispute
the above proposition.
7 Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner was
appointed as Nominee in the Company’s Board of Directors and, by
communication dated 2nd April 2002, it was already decided
to withdraw the nomination of the applicant from the Company’s Board
of Directors being a Director on the Company’s Board of Directors,
the petitioner cannot be held liable for commission of alleged
offence, particularly when the sample, etc, of the alleged
adulterated food was drawn after withdrawal of nomination of the
applicant.
8 In
the result, this petition is allowed. The proceeding of Criminal
Case No.3783 of 2003 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad [Rural], Ahmedabad, so far as it
relates to the present petitioner, is quashed. Rule is made absolute
to the above extent.
(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)
(swamy)
Top
