IN THE HIGH cousrr or KARNATAKA cmcurr BENCH AT DHARWAD k% '% DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF API;Ii§;'2jé9;§.GV"i HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE .:;'_f~i#4¥G¥\§4!.C3§~:|}?3\4!§l: CRIMINAL ea «. 433; ;A%%0§.A'%;§.GGV@V :1 BETWEEN: G.sRm1vAs KRIGHRA; G '. THE GENERAL MANAGER, A '. HIN DUSTAN cocA-co:_AGBGvERAGes» G PR)IVATEGA£.J£NlfrF§D, PLOT NG.18',vBF.DADI~. _mi3USTR1AL AREA, BIDADL aAMAN;xGAaG:GrALuK, BANGALORE E>I_STRIs:f'if.G :PE1TI'IONER may sax. % NAGANAND, sa. couusa. ma V-'S'RI:,RAMACHANvB-RA MALI & SRI.S.R..AMBLI AND «. _"SR1v.B..V,SHANKARA NARAYANA RAD, ADVOCATES) ?~TA7EV'.'E UPA NAGAR POLICE STATION, HUBLI. :RESPONDENT
. _(GYGR1.ANAnD K.NAVALGIMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. BY THE
PHI.A=.TITIONER PRAYING T0 QUASH THE ORDER
G DATED.17.10.D7 PASSED BY THE JMFC-II coumz HUBLI,
flg\,xJ””‘
IN c.c:.~o.1so9/o7 TAKING coG~1zA2qé:*E
oaoea DT.18.1.2003 FOR ISSUE OF…N_._B.W;–.::AND_”ALLH_V
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETQ, A
THIS PETITION HAVINES oteteiénL’o«REs%tER\i§éo:t’t%tFoR %
oaoeas on 25.03.2009, commas. onto t:=c:a
paououmcemem THIS tom THE VCDURT “:?RGNOUNCE’D
THE FOLLOWING:
This petétton iisfiiegi to quash the
order deted._i_n <:.c;.:~ao1o'o9/2007 and also the
entEre_proceet§i.qgs Vof:'JMFC II Court, Hubii.
-The :petjitio’ne;roisaccused No.3 and rmpondent is
the _v<:on3t;"§ioai_::'con.t"–befowfétthe Trial Court. In this judgment
tho sake ofcofivvenience, the parties are referred to by
V before the Trial Court.
It is the case of prosecution that on
« 1s.o3′.éoos, one Mr. Fayaz Ahmed Shaikh and his family
been to the extension counter of Panchasheela Hotel
“end placed orders for a cold soft drink of “Thums Up”. A
Thums up bottle manufactured, packed and distributed
under Batch No.190206,, 16–51, B.No .31-B was supplied
gL\;,\_g.-m.
3
to Mr. Fayaz Sheikh. on opening the seat of –thef’fseE’d’ soft
drink Thums Up bottle, it was found one..Apaciret’:§f’
inside the bottie and the wrapperof vreads’ia’s
‘Goa Gutkafl Immediateiy, the’1rsai{i_’ iFeyé’2: it
the same to the Hotei”V.o:wner, of Hubii
Dharwad Mahanagera (for the ‘HDMC’)
authorities and theproi*z;ei”rnetgurisdictionai poiice
registered apcavee aigeinet; two others in
under Section 272,
27_’§__AR/_wi The Poiice after compietion of
investigetion charge sheet before the Triai
The..V_VVTriaIA:Court under the impugned order had
‘V.teKe;nd_co§–nizance of the offence and has issued the
._ itggirieved by the order of the Triai Court taking
cognvifearice of the ofience, accused No.3 is before this
is .€Z__ourt”‘ seeking to quash the entire proceedings before the
i “ma! Court.
4. Heard arguments on both side and perused the
entire petition papers.
aw-Iv
5. Sec.482 Cr.P.C. specifies the inherent powers of
this Court. But in the Criminai Procedure not
defined as to what is meant by inhereiit’iioirgerifi’But
through several judicial pronouncernente:f:~the.:Supreii<ieV_
Court heid as to when the :i:he*-_ if
inherent powers. If the High. Cou"rtv_"i's satieffied.':that'_i';there:is
miscarriage of justice or of of Court or
the required provisi:oh«s_ _nconiolied with or to
secure the ends of jusl:'ice,li.nl it is but the duty
of C__ourt– to'l'ii-we'Vitnnciorrected at the inception by exercising
its this inherent power shall not be
negiiercised as V'mai::ter of rule but exceptionaily, sparingly
=_,and_i rarest of rare cases. Now I have to examine
._ 1_th;'e're exists any exceptional circumstance in this
i:ase..V:f'orv exercising the inherent power.
''.___'is. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. hiagenand, for
contends that the registration of FIR against the
accusw for the offences punishable under $5. 272, 273
read with $.34 IPC is illegal. Under 5.154 Cr.P.C., it is
dew
only cognizable offences can be registered'–b§rfthe*u:§o!lce,
The offences finder Ss.2?2 and:2»?»3,IPC',: 'rtonecognizehte.
offences and therefore, the reigistretion'of_V"FI:R J
accused is Eiable to be duashed.A'"It__dectihe:'to"accept this
contention of learned Se.re!o'r-.(fo;:nse!"'for the accused.
Admittediy, the offeiicee "a'gfo'inetVthe accused under
Ss.272, 273_i?§: Under 5.155
Cr.P.C.,_ éfgrvrtorrnation, can Investigate a
nonecog'n':z:a'b;t'e::'_ [securing an order from a
to try such case or commit the
case for-triat.' instant case, the HDMC Eodged a
efigriupeiarnt Vi»:'it.h_th_Ae_ jurisdictional police on 21.03.06. The
» fj,uri.sdict!.ona__l_ poiice registered a case in Crime No.71/06
'~ Ax".anct'on".r'the::.same day, the matter was brought to the notice
'of..j'erisd'ictiona! Magistrate. Thereafter, the police have
V " "investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. It is
hm}: shown to me that the notice have not taken an order
T from the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate the matter
against the accused. Therefore, at this stage, Without
.7 wfivkfx
§
expressing any opinion ON MERITS, I deciinevtoflexercise
my power under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. «V
7. It is not in dispute that
question was not has;
siflecified in the provisions of the J
prosecution may prove ‘bt–h:e~V..V_charLge__ ie\urevi.iee.;””e’§ei:nst the
accused even without subgirestitigithe soft’d.rin.i::§ in question
for chemicai anaiysis.’ _rin”e\§ae§y cefseunder the provisions
of that the seized rnateriai has
to be subjectee’j_ijVfor«..cQherhicai anaiysis. when a customer
pieces an o’rder=fo’r. asoft drink, he expects that it wiii not
any foreignv material. Eu: in the instant case, in the
V suppiied to the cornpieinant, it was found that it
Fa foreign rnateriai. The presence of a foreign
mater::ai in the soft drink suppiied to the compieinant
. aifrrounts to violation of provisions of PF’ Act is a matter of
evidence. Be that as it may, under SA82 Cr.9.C., it is not
proper for this Court to screen or assess the materiai on
record at this stage and to conclude that the charge cannot
question is manufactured, packed and
Batch No. 190205, 15-51, B_:Ne:3’13-‘h”H”ahéiétifififiék-:V’.iggtiie.”AV;-.
General Manager of the mandFacté_iri’ng ‘A J
effect, there is pleading ‘end-..mater!al “i’:he Trial!
Court while taking ;,cognizer§:cfe,:.ofthe’.’ofievnce; considered
the pleading and rightly concluded
that there is_pr_tma,.facteZ’::ca$e’f;.toA..t-rye:Jlgain, it is always
open foc defence by placing
Without expressing any
opinion on the em of the opinion that,
the Trial cmngmy this stage that there is
prhfna faclegxceee and cognizance of the offence.
Thereforefl tl5*§,l§Stifiable ground to interfere with the
. “for the teasons stated above, the petition is hereby
“All contentions are kept open.
301/2}
Iuddé’
sac*