IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
Crl. Misc. No. M-76089 of 2008
Date of Decision:- 26.5.2009
Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. .... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. .... Respondents.
Present:- Mr. K.S.Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Punjab.
M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral)
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of FIR No.52,
dated 11.5.2006 under Sections 272, 420, 120-B IPC read with Section 7/16
of the Prevention of Food Adultration Act, registered at Police Station
Haibwal, District Ludhiana, on the ground that criminal complaint under
Section 7 and 16 of the Food Adultration Act has separatly been filed by the
Food Inspector Sukh Rao and the petitioners have been summoned for
11.10.2006.
It is contended that the case of the prosecution in both the State
cases i.e. in FIR and complaint is to the effect that on 11.5.2006 the Food
Inspector along with Dr. Harjot Pal Singh, GFI under the supervision of Dr.
Rajinder Singh DHO and Jaswiner Singh, ASI, Police Station Haibowal,
Ludhiana, had visited the premises of petitioners in Radhe Shyam Colony,
Panjpeer Road, Haibowal Khurd, Ludhiana, where the petitioners were
found present. They were in possession of 60 Kg Ghee kept in a big Tub
meant for sale to public for human consumption. After the necessary
formalities of sampling, sealing and purchase, the sample was sent for
testing to public analyist. The report of public analyist was received to the
Crl. Misc. No. M-76089 of 2008 -2-
effect that Ghee was adulterated as Bedouins Test was found to be positive.
The Richert value was 2.42 against the minimum prescribed standard of
28.0.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
there cannot be separate trials for the same offence. Since learned counsel
for the petitioner has not referred to any material which forms part of the
charge-sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, it cannot be said with certainty
whether the ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC, are made out
against the petitioner. It is not known whether any person who had been
cheated was made a witness in the State case i.e. FIR No. 52, dated
11.5.2006.
Learned State counsel has contended that in view of provisions of
Section 155(4) Cr.P.C when a case relates to two or more offences of which
at least one is cognizable the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case,
notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. It has also been
argued that in view of provisions of Section 156(2) Cr.P.C., no proceeding
of police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on
the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered
under this section to investigate.
Learned counsel for the petitioners faced with the said situation
has submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied in case a direction is
issued that the criminal complaint filed by the Food Inspector and the case
registered by the Police are clubbed together to prevent unnecessary
harassment to the petitioners.
I have gone through the contents of the complaint as well as FIR.
The FIR was registered on 11.5.2006 whereas the criminal complaint
Crl. Misc. No. M-76089 of 2008 -3-
regarding the same subject matter was filed in August 2006.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State Counsel and
carefully applied my mind to the facts of the present case. So far as event
from which criminal prosecution has been launched against the petitioners
is concerned, continuation of separate proceedings against the petitioner
would not be in the interest of justice and would rather be an abuse of
process of Court. The petitioners cannot be tried for offence under Section
7 and 16 of the Food Adulteration Act in a complaint filed by Food
Inspector as well as by initiating separate proceedings after registration of
case under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
Since the entire charge-sheet filed in the criminal case is not
available, it is deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to dispose of this
petition with a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana to
entrust both the cases i.e complaint- State Vs. Sunil Kumar and criminal
case – State Vs. Sunil Kumar, arisen out of the FIR No. 52, dated 11.5.2006
to the same Magistrate. It is directed that proceedings in both the matters
will be taken up simultaneously by the same Magistrate. It will be open to
the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence to decide any of the cases
before another. It will be open to the said Court to apply the principles of
Section 300 Cr.P.C for adjudication of the second criminal case
With the above observation, this petition is disposed of. It is
further directed that the Court taking cognizance of both the cases would
make earnest endeavor to dispose of both the case within a period of six
months after the transfer of both the cases to one Court.
May 26, 2009 (M.M.S.Bedi) tripti Judge
