Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/7815/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 7815 of 2010
=========================================================
RAKESHBHAI
ARVINDBHAI PATEL & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SK GADHAVI for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.MR RAJENDRA GADHAVI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
MS
ML SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for
Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 02/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioners seek quashing of complaint for alleged offences under the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act( the said Act for short) on
the ground that offence alleged is non cognizable offence. After
perusal of the allegations in the complaint, counsel for the
petitioners drew my attention to Section 16A of the said Act as well
as to Section 20(3) of the said Act to contend that recording of the
non cognizable offence was legally not permissible.
It
is however, not in dispute that the case of petitioners is covered
under Section 16(1A) of the Act and not under Section 16(1AA) of the
Act. In that view of the matter provision of Section 20(3) which have
reference to Section 16(1AA) of the Act would not apply. With respect
to provisions contained in Section 16(1A), reading the provision and
further provision together, it would be clear that it is only when
Magistrate is inclined to impose sentence not exceeding one year that
summary procedure is to be adopted. On the other hand, if Magistrate
is of the opinion that punishment in excess of one year would be
ultimately warranted, he has to follow the procedure for non summary
trial. Said provision also therefore, cannot be applied to hold that
offence that petitioners is charged with is non cognizable one.
In
the result, petition fails. Same is dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top