HARI SHANKAR AGGARWAL versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 1005 · Decided: 10-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1005
HARI SHANKAR AGGARWAL
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR
(Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2021)
MARCH 10, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – ss.7/16 – Offence
under – Cognizance taken against appellant by Courts below – If
justified – Case of  appellant that he was not a nominee of the firm
/ company in question and there being no allegation against him,
no cognizance of the offence could have taken against him – Held:
As per s.17 of the Act, notice u/s.17(2) is contemplated by company
to Local Health Authority in such form and in such manner as
prescribed that it has nominated such Director or Manager as a
person who is responsible along with written consent of such
Director – On facts, when the nomination was in Form VIII and
duly sent and received, it cannot be rejected on the ground that it
was sent on the letter head of the company – The averments in the
complaint itself clearly indicate that it was the name of one Devendra
Singh Bhadauria which was with the Local Health Authority, hence
it was he who was responsible for the affairs of the company and
reference of appellant whose name was informed by the Commercial
Tax Department, has no relevance – High Court as well as the Special
Judge erred in rejecting the case of the appellant – Further there
were no specific allegations against the appellant in the complaint
apart from that he was being impleaded as a nominee – Thus, no
cognizance could have been taken against the appellant for offence
u/s.7/16 of the Act, and the Courts below committed error in taking
cognizance.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 297 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2018 of the High Court
of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1664 of 2018.
Ajay Jain, Jinendra Jain, Ms. Mitika, Ms. Tannu Vats, Ms. Cherry
Aggarwal, Advs. for the Appellant.
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1005
1005
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Milind Kumar, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. Manish Singhvi,
learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan. This appeal
has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 passed
by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, by which the Criminal
Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1664/2018 filed by the appellant has been
dismissed.
3. Brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are:-
a complaint was filed by the Medical and Health Department,
(Rajasthan) for offence under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 on the basis of inspection made on 02.03.2002 on
Oswal Traders Shop. In a complaint, it was averred that on information
received from Commercial Tax Department, Jaipur, the nominee of firm
is Hari Shankar Aggarwal S/o Shri Vasudev Prasad Agarwal,
therefore he has been made a party. In paragraph 11, it was further
stated that according to information received from the Local Health
Officer, Mathura the Director of M/s Bhola Baba Milk Food Industry
is Devendra Singh Bhadauria, who was also  impleaded as one of the
party. The Judicial Magistrate, Jhalwar, Rajasthan, took cognizance of
the offence and issued summon by order dated 04.08.2003. Against the
order dated 04.08.2003, the appellant-Hari Shankar Aggarwal filed
criminal case No.17 of 2017, challenging the order of the Trial Court
dated 04.08.2003.
4. The case of the appellant is that he was not a nominee of the
firm and one Devendra Singh Bhadauria was declared as nominee.
The information regarding his nomination had already been submitted to
the Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, which was received on 21.10.1995
and there being no allegation against the appellant, no cognizance of the
offence could have taken against the appellant. The petition was dismissed
by the Special Judge on 16.02.2018 against which the Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition was filed in the High Court, which has been
rejected by the impugned judgment of the High Court. Learned counsel
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
for the appellant  relying on Annexure P-2, which is an information in
Form VIII submitted to the Chief Medical Officer on 21.10.1995, submits
that form nominating Devendra Singh Bhadauria, was sent by letter
dated 21.02.1995 which was duly received by Chief Medical Officer on
21.10.1995. Hence, the complaint against the appellant alleging

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.