LexM/S. PEPSI FOODS LTD. AND ANR. versus SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. A MIS. PEPSI FOODS LTD. AND ANR. v. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND ORS. •· NOVEMBER 4, 1997 B [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) \ . C~nstitution of India, 1950: Articles 2261227-Powers of High Court- Food Adulteration-Appeilants-Name lender to the beverage 'Lehar C Pepsi'-Report by Analyst-Fungus present-Complaint by the consumer before Magistrate-Summons issued to the appellants-High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that sufficient remedy available under Cr. P. C.- Held, rigid approach by High Court-Miscarriage of justice-Power of superintendence under Article 227 is not only administrative but also judicial in nature-No bar for approaching the High Court under section 482 of the D Code or Article 227 of the Constitutio'1-Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973- Sec. 482. E F G Judicial Review-Held High Court can exercise its powers of judicial review in criminal matters. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954-Section 7 read with section 16-Adulteration- 'Lehar Pepsi'-Report of Analyst-Fungus present- Adulterated-Summons issued by Magistrate to appellants who gave brand name-Held nothing on record to show that appellants had the licence for the manufacture of the offending beverage-No offence committed by appellants. Practice & Procedure-Presiding Officer of Court-No allegation of personal bias-lmpleaded as party to the proceedings-Held, a Court is not to be equated with the Tribunal exercising quasi judicial powers-Not to be arrayed as a party to the proceedings. Criminal law-Magistrate-Summoning of an accused-Requirements to be fulfllled-laid down. Respondent No. 2 (Complainant) purchased a bottle of 'Lehar Pepsi'. After consuming the beverage, he felt a strange taste and on observation H found that the bottle contained many white particles. He sent the sample for 12 ...... PEPSI FOODS LTD. v. S.J. MAGISTRATE 13 analysis. The State Public Analyst gave a report that due to the presence of A fungus in the sample, it was adulterated. A complaint was filed before the Magistrate against the appellants and others under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate summoned the appellants. Appellants approached the High Court in writ petition for quashing the complaint filed B against them. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that sufficient remedy was available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved by the orders of the High Court the appellants have filed the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court C HELD : 1. I. The High Court should not have adopted a rigid approach which certainly had led to miscarriage of justice in the present case. Power of judicial review is discretionary but this was a case where the High Court should have exercised it. (29-8( 1.2. It is settled that High Court can exercise its powers of judicial review in criminal matters. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the power of superintendence by the High Court is not only of administrative nature but is also of judicial nature. This article confers vast powers on the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of law by the inferior courts D and to see that the stream of administration of j'.lstice remains clear and E pure. The power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and under section 482 Cr. P. C. have no limits but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. When the exercise of powers could be under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it may not always be necessary to F invoke the provisions of Article 226. 124-F; 25-A-C) State of Hary1ana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., (1992] Supp. 1 SCC 335; Waryam Singh and Anr. v. Amarnath and Anr., AIR (1954) SC 215 = (1954] SCR 565; Da/mia Jain Airways ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee, AIR (1951) Cal. 193 SB; Babhutmal Rai-Chand Oswa/ v. Laxmibai R .. Tarte and G Anr., AIR (1975) SC 1297 = (19751 l SCC 858; Rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, (1952) I All ER 122 and Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commissioner of Hills Division, f 1958( SCR 1240, referred to. 1.3. No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean H 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A that the accused ca
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.