DHARIWAL TOBAGO PRODUCTS LTD. AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 844 · Decided: 17-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 844 
~ 
I .. 
A 
DHARIWAL TOBAGO PRODUCTS LTD. AND OTHERS 
..• 
v. 
t-
' 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2008) 
B 
DECEMBER 17, 2008 
...._
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
< 
,... 
ss. 482 and 397 - Petition· seeking to quash order of 
c Judicial Magistrate issuing summons - Dismissed by High 
Court holding that remedy uls 397 could be availed of -
HELD: Issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order 
within the meaning of s.397 - Only because a revision petition 
is maintaina~le, it would not constitute a bar to entertain an 
D application u/s 482 - Matter remitted to High Court for 
decision afresh - Alternative remedy - Interlocutory order. 
A criminal complaint was filed against appellant no. 
1, its Chairman and the Managing Director, namely, 
appellants no. 2 and 3, on the allegations that the 'Gutkha' 
E manufactured by the company w.as found to be 
adulterated in terms of r.62(1) of the Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Judicial Magistrate took 
cognizance and issued summons. The petition filed by 
. 
the appellants uls 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
~ 
F 1973 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings was 
dismissed by the High Court holding that revisional 
,, 
' 
jurisdiction uls 397 of the Code could be availed of. 
,_-., 
In the appeal filed by the accused, the question for 
consideration before the Supreme Court was: Whether 
an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
.,. 
G 
I 
1973 can be dismissed only on the premise that an 
alternative remedy of filing a revision application uls 397 
,._ 
of the Code was available? 
/It· .... '. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
844 
DHARIWAL TOBACO PRODUCTS LTD. v. STATE OF 
· 845 
MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
HELD: Issuance of summons is not an interlocutory 
A 
-t order within the meaning of s. 397 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973. Only because a revision petition is 
maintainable, the same by itself would not constitute a 
bar for entertaining ·an application under s. 482 of the 
Code. The power of the High Court can be exercised not 
8 
only in terms of s. 482 but also in terms of s. 483 of the 
Code. Inherent power of the High Court is not conferred 
by statute but has merely been saved thereunder. Thus, 
' 
it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High Court 
would be held to be barred only because the revisional 
jurisdiction could also be availed of. The judgment of the 
C 
High Court is set aside. It would consider the matter 
afresh on merits. [Para 8, 10 and 16] [848-C-D; 849-A; 854-
C-D] 
~ 
---( 
,.. -}( 
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; Som 
Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 574; Surya Dev 
D 
Rai v. Ram Chander Ral and others (2003) 6 SCC 675; 
Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another (1997) 4 
SCC 241; Ada/at Prasad v. Roop/al Jindal and others (2004) 
7 SCC 338 and Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana 
and others AIR 1977 SC 2185, relied on. 
E 
G. Sagar Suri v. State of UP. (2000) 2 SCC 636 and 
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava 
(2006) 7 sec 188, referred to. 
Vishwanaath Ramkrishna Patil and:another v. Ashok 
Murlidhar Sonar and Anr. 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 671 and Keki 
Bomi Dadiseth and others v. State of Maharashtra 2002 (3) 
Mh.L.J.246, approved. 
V.K. Jain and others v. Pratap V. Padode and Anr. 2005 
(30) Mh.L.J. 778, overruled. 
Case Law Reference: 
2005 (30) Mh.L.J. 778 
overruled 
para 6 
AIR 1960 SC 866 
relied on 
para 8 
(2008) 3 sec 57 4 
relied on 
para 8 
(2003) 6 sec 675 
relied on 
para 8 
F 
G 
H 
846 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 17 S.C.R. 
A 
(1997) 4 sec 241 
relied on 
para 10 
(2004) 1 sec 338 
relied on 
para 10 
~-
AIR 1977 SC 2185 
relied on 
para 11 
.. 
(2000) 2 sec 636 
referred t9 
para 12 
i 
(2006) 1 sec 188 
referred to 
para 13 
-
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 2055 of 2008. 
-
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.12.2006 of the High 
4· 
Court Bombay at Mumbai in Criminal Application No. 7220 of 
~-
2005. 
c 
Siddharth Dave, Neil Hildreth, Praveen Kumar and Tarun 
Gulati for the Appellants. 
Madhavi Diwan and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the 
Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
,. 
2. Whether an application under Section 482 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (for short 'the Code') can be 
E 
dismissed only on the premise that an a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.