HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 401 · Decided: 12-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2016] 2 S.C.R. 401 
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 252 of2016) 
APRIL 12,2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SIDVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - ss. 16 and 13(2) 
A 
B 
c 
- Prosecution u/s. 16 r!w. r. 50 (I) the Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Of 6 accused - One of the accused 
exercised his right uls. 13 (2) - Second as weU as third samples 
directed to be given to Central Food LaboratoryJCFL) for .re-
analysis - Petition by appellant-accused u!s. 482. Cr.PC. for 
·quashing the proceedings - Dismissed by High' <;;ourt ~ On appeal, 
held: In a case where there are many accused, once a right is 
exercised ills. 13(2) by any of the accused leading to a certificate . D 
from Director of CFL, such report shall supersede the report of the 
Public Analyst - Such supersession shall enure to the benefit of all 
the accused and not alone to the accused who exercised the right u/ 
s. 13(2) - The criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed- Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - s. 482 - Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Act, 1955 - r. 50(1). 
Allowing the appeal, the Conrt 
HELD: In a case like the present, where there are many 
' 
accused, ouce right is exercised under Section 13(2) of Prevention · 
of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by any of the accused leading to a' 
certificate from the Director of the CFL, the conseq~nce would 
be supersession of the report given earlier by the Public Analyst. 
under sub-section (1) of Section 13 and such supersession must 
enure to the benefit of all the co-accused and not alone to the 
accused who exercised their right under Section 13(2) of the PFA 
Act. In cases where the number of accused is more than oue, 
there is no possibility of complying with individual prayer of all 
the co-accused to send different samples for re-analysis by the 
CFL because Statute requires preparation of only 3 samples. [Paras 
5 and 6] [403-G; 404-A, H; 405-A] 
401 
E 
F 
G 
H 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah v. C.C. Jani & Anr. (2009) 15 
SCC 64: 2009 (12) SCR 229 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
2009 (12) SCR 229 
relied on. 
Para 7 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
c 
D 
E 
F 
No. 252 of2016 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2015 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S. B. Criminal 
Miscellaneous Petition No. 444 of2008 
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ajay Aggarwal, Satish Solanki, Sidharth 
Banthia, Ms. Ruchika, Rajan Narain, Advs., with him for the Appellant. 
S.S. Shamshery, AAG, Amit Sharma, lshu Prayas, Ms. S. Spandana 
Reddy, Advs., with him for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. l. By the impugned order under 
challenge dated 12.01.2015 a learned Single Judge of Jaipur Bench of 
the Rajasthan High Court chose to reject appellant's prayer to quash 
criminal case bearing CC No.2776/2000 under Section 16 of the 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFAAct) pending on the file 
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur. As a consequence, 
appellant's application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 
·Procedure bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.444 of2008 stands 
dismissed by the High Court. 
2. A perusal of the complaint petition filed by Food Inspector in 
the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jaipur discloses that 
appellant along with five others has been arrayed as accused. As per 
allegations, a sample of Kesar Pista ice cream was taken by the Food 
Inspector from a dealer of the appellant's product on 05.04.1999. After 
taking the necessary steps samples in three empty bottles were prepared 
G 
to which required quantity of formalin was also added in each bottle. 
One sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst as required by 
the provisions of the PFAAct. As per report of the Public Analyst dated 
19.04.1999 the sample was found to be adulterated as itdid not conform 
to the prescribed standards. According to the complainant all the required 
steps were taken as per law and complaint was filed on 23 .11.2000 
H 
against all the accused persons including the appellant under Section 16 
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
[SHIVA KIRT! SlN9H, J.] 
of the PFAAct and Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration 
Rules, 1955 framed under the said Act. One co-accused exercised his 
right under Section 13(2) of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.