LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus PURSHOTAM DASS JHUNJUNWALA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
895 MUNICIPAL CORPORATiON.OF DELHI·. A v. PURSHOTAM DASS JHUNJUNWALA· AND OTHERS B December 1, 1982 [S: MURTAZA FAZAL 'ALI AND B.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure,. 1913-S. 482-Comp/alnt containing clear allegatioru-High Court not justifi!d in quashing proceeding1 against Dccu1ed. d . The facts or this case were almost identical with that or· Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Klsha!J Rohlagl and Ori. (the case reported imme- diately before this one). However Paragraph S or the. conlplaint filed in this case l · was in the following terms : · · · · "That accused Ram Kishan Bajaj is tho Chairman,.. accused R.P. · Neyatiya is the Managing Director and accused Nos. 7 to 12 are the D Directors or the Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. and were inchai-ge of and .. respon1ible to it for the conduct· of its business at the time of · eommission of offence.•• ·Adopting a line or reasoning similar to the one adopted by it in the earlier caSe, the High Court had quashed the proceeding against the accused (resporidents here). > .. . After pointing out that the Jaw on the subject bad been dealt with in the earlier case and allowing the appeal, . ,, HELD: Io this Case a cleaf averment bas been m~dC in Para S of th~ ~complaint regarding the active rote played by the respondents and the extent of their liability and a prima facie case for summoning the accused has been made· out. It cannot therefore_ be said that Paragraph S or the complaint is vague and' does ooi implicato the respondents. ~."5 to what would be the evidence . agains~ . the -1C:spondents is not a matter to be considered at this stage and would have to ' be proved at the tiial. The High Court went wrong in holding that th;:, aIIC&ationS ·made in Paragraph S were vague. [897 B~D~ ' E F' CRIMINAL APPELLATE Jua1so1CTION: Criminal Appeal No. 749 G' -.-of 1980. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and ·order dated the 5th March, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc.· (Main) No. 501 of 1974. B.f'.· Maheshwari for the Appellant. . <i ' . I I l B a o··_ 896 (i983) i s.c.~. V.S. Desai and Anind Minocha for the Respondents: _The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .- - . ' FAZAL Au,'J. This appeal by special° leave is directed· against a 'judgment dated 5.3.1980 of the Delhi High Court by which the High. Court. quashed .the proceedings taken ·by .the Municipal _ -Corporation of Delhi against respondent. Nos. I to ll. This is a ·-case where the facts arc almost identical with1the facts of Criminal Appeal No. 701' of 1980 which we have decided today, with a vital difference which we shall point out hereafter. _ .Io thiscase also, Shri M.M. Gupta, Food Inspector. in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi purchased a sample of-milk toffees · from shop of Jagdish Chander Mehta situate at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. · Tte milk toffees which were purchased by .the food inspector were found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. The toffees / in this case were manufactured by Hindustan Sugar Mills, 51, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay. A complaint was filed before .the Metro- politan Magistrate against accused Nos. I to 12 under sections 7/16/17 ·of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act mentioning the facts stated above. . ./ The High Court was of the view that the complaint· did not B disclose any offence and adopting a similar line of reasoning, as in criminal' appeal No .. 701 of 1980, quashed the proceedings against -respondent Nos. l to 11. We have already dealt, with the law on the subject in our decision in criminal appeal No. 701 of 1980, a , copy of which is placed on the file of this case. The relevant allega- · ~ tions against tha accused-respondents are to be found in para S of F-. :._:_ the complaint which may be extracied thus : G H "'""-- ·.,, . • · . "S, .. That accused .Ram Kishan Bajaj is the Chairman, accused R.P. Neyatia is the Managing Director and accused Nos. '7 to 12 are the Director( of the Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. and were incharge of and responsible to it for the con- duct of its business at the-time of commission of offence." . -,_ -- - Unllk~ the other case, para S of the complaint of this case gives complete details of the role played by the respondents and _the extent , of their liability; It is clearly mentioned that Ram Kishan Bajaj is the Chairman and · R.P: Neyatia is the Managing Director and res· pondents 7 to 11 are the Dire
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.