Holding

The complaint’s paragraph S clearly alleged the accused’s active role and liability, establishing a prima facie case; therefore the High Court’s quashing of the proceedings was erroneous.

Summary

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi filed a complaint under sections 7, 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act alleging that Hindustan Sugar Mills’ milk‑toffees were adulterated. Paragraph S of the complaint specifically named Ram Kishan Bajaj (Chairman), R.P. Neyatiya (Managing Director) and several directors as being in charge of the mill at the time of the offence. The Delhi High Court held that the complaint was vague and, invoking CrPC s.482, quashed the proceedings against the accused. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the allegations in paragraph S and found them clear, detailed and sufficient to constitute a prima facie case for summoning the accused. It held that the High Court erred in deeming the complaint vague and in exercising its power to quash the case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside and the magistrate’s order restored, so that the accused will be summoned for trial.

Issues considered

Whether paragraph S of the complaint sufficiently averred the role and liability of the accused to constitute a prima facie case.
Whether the Delhi High Court was justified in exercising its power under CrPC s.482 to quash the proceedings.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Prevention of Food Adulteration Acts. 16, s. 17, s. 7

Subjects

criminal proceduresection 482complaintprima facie casefood adulterationcorporate liabilityquash of proceedings

Judgment

895
A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATiON.OF DELHI·.

v.
PURSHOTAM DASS JHUNJUNWALA· AND OTHERS
B
December 1, 1982
[S: MURTAZA FAZAL 'ALI AND B.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.)

Code of Criminal Procedure,. 1913-S. 482-Comp/alnt containing clear
allegatioru-High Court not justifi!d in quashing proceeding1 against Dccu1ed. d.
The facts or this case were almost identical with that or· Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Klsha!J Rohlagl and Ori. (the case reported imme-
diately before this one). However Paragraph S or the. conlplaint filed in this case
l · was in the following terms : · · · ·

"That accused Ram Kishan Bajaj is tho Chairman,.. accused R.P.
· Neyatiya is the Managing Director and accused Nos. 7 to 12 are the D
Directors or the Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. and were inchai-ge of and ..
respon1ible to it for the conduct· of its business at the time of ·
eommission of offence.••

·Adopting a line or reasoning similar to the one adopted by it in the earlier
caSe, the High Court had quashed the proceeding against the accused (resporidents
here). >.. E
.After pointing out that the Jaw on the subject bad been dealt with in the
earlier case and allowing the appeal, .

,, HELD: Io this Case a cleaf averment bas been m~dC in Para S of th~
~complaint regarding the active rote played by the respondents and the extent of
their liability and a prima facie case for summoning the accused has been made· F'
out. It cannot therefore_ be said that Paragraph S or the complaint is vague and'
does ooi implicato the respondents. ~."5 to what would be the evidence . agains~
. the -1C:spondents is not a matter to be considered at this stage and would have to
' be proved at the tiial. The High Court went wrong in holding that th;:, aIIC&ationS
·made in Paragraph S were vague. [897 B~D~ '

CRIMINAL APPELLATE Jua1so1CTION: Criminal Appeal No. 749 G'
-.-of 1980.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and ·order dated
the 5th March, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc.·
(Main) No. 501 of 1974.

B.f'.· Maheshwari for the Appellant. . <i

' .
896 (i983) i s.c.~.

V.S. Desai and Anind Minocha for the Respondents:
_The Judgment of the Court was
.- delivered
- .
by '

FAZAL Au,'J. This appeal by special° leave is directed· against
a 'judgment dated 5.3.1980 of the Delhi High Court by which the
High. Court. quashed .the proceedings taken ·by .the Municipal
B
_-Corporation of Delhi against respondent. Nos. I to ll. This is a
·-case where the facts arc almost identical with1the facts of Criminal
Appeal No. 701' of 1980 which we have decided today, with a vital
difference which we shall point out hereafter.

a _ .Io thiscase also, Shri M.M. Gupta, Food Inspector. in the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi purchased a sample of- milk toffees ·
from shop of Jagdish Chander Mehta situate at Lajpat Nagar, New
Delhi. · Tte milk toffees which were purchased by .the food inspector
were found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. The toffees / in
this case were manufactured by Hindustan Sugar Mills, 51, Mahatma
o··_ Gandhi Road, Bombay. A complaint was filed before .the Metro-
politan Magistrate against accused Nos. I to 12 under sections
7/16/17 ·of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act mentioning the
facts stated above. .
./
The High Court was of the view that the complaint· did not
B disclose any offence and adopting a similar line of reasoning, as in
criminal' appeal No .. 701 of 1980, quashed the proceedings against
-respondent Nos. l to 11. We have already dealt, with the law on
the subject in our decision in criminal appeal No. 701 of 1980, a
of
, copy of which is placed on the file this case. The relevant allega- · ~
tions against tha accused-respondents are to be found in para S of
F-. :._:_ the complaint which may be extracied thus :
"'""-- ·.,, .

• · . "S, .. That accused .Ram Kishan Bajaj is the Chairman,
.•
accused R.P. Neyatia is the Managing Director and accused
Nos. '7 to 12 are the Director(of the Hindustan Sugar Mills
Ltd. and were incharge of and responsible to it for the con-
G duct of its business at the-time of commission of offence."
. -,_ -- -

Unllk~ the other case, para S of the complaint of this case gives
complete details of the role played by the respondents and _the extent ,
H of their liability; It is clearly mentioned that Ram Kishan Bajaj is
the Chairman and · R.P: Neyatia is the Managing Director and res·
pondents 7 to 11 are the Directors of the Mill and were inc?arge of

I
I
l
MUNiciPAL CORPN. v. P.b. JHU~IUNWALA (Fazai Ali,/) 897

and respo~sible for the conduct of its business at the time of the A
commission 9f the offence whereas in the other case the complaint
has merely drawn a presumption without any averment.

In the instant case, a clear averment ha_s been made regarding
.the active role played by the respondents and the extent of their B
' liability. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that para 5
of the complaint is vague and does not implicate respondents I to
11. As to what would be the eviderce against the respondents is not
, a matter to be considered at this stage and would have to be proved
at the trial. We have already held that for the purpose of quashing the
proceedings only the allegations set forth in the complaint have to be c
seen and nothing further.

From a perusal of the various clauses of the complaint, includ
ing para 5, it is quite clear that a prima facie case for summoning
the accused has been made out and the High Court was absolutely
wrong in holding that the allegations made in para 5 are vague. The D
., High Court failed to consider that the allegations were •quite clear
and explicit so as to be sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence
again~! the accused.

Further details would have to be ~iven in the shape of evidence
when the trial proceeds and in view of the _clear allegations made in E
para 5 of the complaint, we are not in a position to agree with the
High Court that it is a fit case in which it should have exercised its
discretion under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in
order to quash the proceedings against the accused-respo_ndents.

For these reasons, therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the F
judgment of the High Court and restore thai of the Metropolitan
Magistrate as a result of which all the accused will now be
summoned and placed for trial in accordance with law.

H.L.C. Appeal allowed. G