STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.versusRAMESHCHANDRA SHIVRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC.

                        [2009] 7 S.C.R. 134


A             STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.                            •
                             V.
    RAMESHCHANDRA SH!VRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC.
          Criminal Appeal Nos. 1457-1463 of 2004
                         APRIL 28, 2009
B
          (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                       GANGULY, JJ.)                                          ~



                                                                   •
        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Parameters
  for exercise of jurisdiction under s. 482 - Discussed -
c Proceedings initiated against respondents uls. 7(1) and (5) of
  the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - High Court quashed
  the proceedings in exercise of power under s.482 - Propriety
  of - Held: Not proper - Factual controversies were involved
  which could not have been adjudicated by the High Court in
                                                                   I'
D proceedings u/s. 482 - Scope and ambit of s. 482 was not kept
  in view by the High Court - Prevention of Food Adulteration
  Act, 1954 - s. 7.
        Complaints were filed alleging commission of
  offences punishable under s.16 rlw s.7(1) and 7 (5) of the
E Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It was alleged
  that the samples.collected by the Food Inspector from the
  business premises of respondent were sent to the public
  analyst and the report received showed that the said
  samples contained a prohibited substance and thus the
F food articles, in respect of which the samples were
  collected, and which were being stored and sold by the
  respondents, were adulterated.
       Respondents filed application uls.482 CrPC for
G
  quashing of the complaints taking the stand that there
  was no violation on their part and that the ingredients in
  the concerned food article were within the permissible limit.         ...
        The High Court held that the complaints filed did not

H                               134
                     STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. V. RAMESHCHANDRA 135
                            SHIVRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC.
                                                                  •
                disclose any offence and accordingly quashed the              A
                proceedings.
                     In appeals to the Court, it was contended that it was
                not a case where s.482 CrPC had any application and that
                jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC should not have been
                exercised by the High Court. Respondents, on the other        B
                hand, contended that analysis by the public analyst was
                not done keeping in view the requisite norms.
            '
                     Allowing the appeals, the Court

....                  HELD: The parameters for exercise of jurisdiction c
                under s.482 CrPC has been highlighted by this Court in
                large number of cases. To a pointed query as to whether
                in the petition filed before the High Court, there was any
                challenge or any specific stand taken about the requisite
                norms having not been followed by the public analyst, it D
                was submitted that though that was not specifically done
                yet the specific stand was that there was no violation and
                the ingredients were within the permissible limit. The High
                Court does not appear to have considered this aspect at
                all and factual controversies were involved which could
                                                                            E
                not have been adjudicated in the proceedings under
                Section 482 CrPC. That being so, the exercise of power
                under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court was clearly
        "       indefensible. [Paras 6, 7] [137-D-F]
                     CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal          F
                Nos. 1457-1463 of 2004
                     From the Judgement and Order dated 03.09.2002 of the
                Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc.
                Application Nos. 5511 of 1994, 2797, 2798, 2800, 2801, 2804
                and 2805 of 1997.                                            G
       ..            Pinky Behra, Hemantika Wahi, for the Appellant.
"""'
                      M.R.Anand, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Tarun
                Satija, Lawyer's Knit & Co., for the Respondent.
                                                                              H
    136       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2009] 7 S.C.R.

              •
A         The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
           1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a
    learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court allowing seven
B   applications filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
    Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). In the applications prayer
    was made to quash the proceedings pending before four Judicial
    Magistrates and one Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom             •
    three proceedings were pending. The cases were instituted on
    the basis of complaints filed for alleged commission of offences
c   punishable under Section 16 read with Section 7(1) and 7 (5)
    of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the
    'Act'). It was indicated in the complaints that the Food Inspector
    had gone to the shop of the respondents and had obtained
    sample in accordance with the Prevention of Food Adulteration
D   Rules, 1955 (in short the 'Rules'). The samples were sent to the
    public analyst and the report was received showing that the food
    product of samples which were collected contained 'Saccharin'.
    The use of Saccharin or addition thereof in a food product was
    impermissible and food articles containing Saccharin which was
E   not permitted to be used made the food article adulterated. The
    present respondents had stored the food articles in the business
    premises with the intention to sell them and had actually sold
    the articles to the Food Inspector. On receiving the complaints
    the concerned Magistrates registered the complaints and issued        "
    process. The High Court was moved for quashing the
F
    complaints. It was the stand of the applicants that the sample
    did not contain any prohibited substance and the food article
    was not adulterated. The stand was that the food product in
    respect of which the samples were collected was really a Pan
    Masala and, therefore, has to be construed as such. It was
G   therefore submitted that if it is treated as Pan Masala it fulfills
    the requisite standard.
           2. Stand of the present appellants was that the quantum
                                                                              •
                                                                                  '•
    of artificial sweetener exceeded the maximum limit of artificial
    sweetener.
H
        STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. V. RAMESHCHANDRA 137
     SHIVRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

         3. The High Court accepted the prayer on the ground that     A
    the complaint did not disclose any offence. Accordingly, the
    proceedings were quashed.
         4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the
    appellants submitted that it is not a case where Section 482 of
    Code has any application. The exercise of jurisdiction under      8
    Section 482 of Code should not have been made. Reference is
    made to the Food Analyst report on the basis of which the
    proceedings were initiated.


-        5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
    submitted that the analysis by the public analyst was not done
    keeping in view the requisite parameters. It is submitted that
                                                                      c

    the norms which were applicable when the analysis were made
    had not been kept in view.
          6. The parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under D
    Section 482 of the Code has been highlighted by this court in
    large number of cases. To a pointed query as to whether in the
    petition filed before the High Court there was any challenge or
    any specific stand taken about the requisite norms having not
    been followed by the public analyst, it was submitted that though E
    that was not specifically done yet the specific stand was that
    there was no violation and the ingredients were within the
    permissible limit. The High Court does not appear to have
    considered this aspect at all and factual controversies were
    involved which could not have been adjudicated in the F
    proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.
          7. That being so, the exercise of power under Section 482
    of the Code is clearly indefensible. The impugned order of the
    High Court is set aside. The appeals are allowed. We make it
    clear that we have interfered in the matter because the scope     G
    and ambit of Section 482 of the Code had not been kept in
    view and not on merits.

    B.B.B.                                       Appeals allowed.