STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. versus RAMESHCHANDRA SHIVRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 28-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 134 
A 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
• 
V. 
RAMESHCHANDRA SH!VRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC. 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1457-1463 of 2004 
B 
APRIL 28, 2009 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.) 
~ 
• 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Parameters 
c 
for exercise of jurisdiction under s. 482 - Discussed -
Proceedings initiated against respondents uls. 7(1) and (5) of 
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - High Court quashed 
the proceedings in exercise of power under s.482 - Propriety 
of - Held: Not proper - Factual controversies were involved 
which could not have been adjudicated by the High Court in 
I' 
D proceedings u/s. 482 - Scope and ambit of s. 482 was not kept 
in view by the High Court - Prevention of Food Adulteration 
Act, 1954 - s. 7. 
Complaints were filed alleging commission of 
E offences punishable under s.16 rlw s.7(1) and 7 (5) of the 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It was alleged 
that the samples.collected by the Food Inspector from the 
business premises of respondent were sent to the public 
analyst and the report received showed that the said 
F 
samples contained a prohibited substance and thus the 
food articles, in respect of which the samples were 
collected, and which were being stored and sold by the 
respondents, were adulterated. 
Respondents filed application uls.482 CrPC for 
G quashing of the complaints taking the stand that there 
was no violation on their part and that the ingredients in 
the concerned food article were within the permissible limit. 
... 
The High Court held that the complaints filed did not 
H 
134 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. V. RAMESHCHANDRA 135 
SHIVRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC. 
• 
disclose any offence and accordingly quashed the A 
proceedings. 
In appeals to the Court, it was contended that it was 
not a case where s.482 CrPC had any application and that 
jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC should not have been 
exercised by the High Court. Respondents, on the other B 
hand, contended that analysis by the public analyst was 
' 
not done keeping in view the requisite norms. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
.... 
HELD: The parameters for exercise of jurisdiction c 
under s.482 CrPC has been highlighted by this Court in 
large number of cases. To a pointed query as to whether 
in the petition filed before the High Court, there was any 
challenge or any specific stand taken about the requisite 
norms having not been followed by the public analyst, it D 
was submitted that though that was not specifically done 
yet the specific stand was that there was no violation and 
the ingredients were within the permissible limit. The High 
Court does not appear to have considered this aspect at 
all and factual controversies were involved which could E 
not have been adjudicated in the proceedings under 
Section 482 CrPC. That being so, the exercise of power 
under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court was clearly 
" 
indefensible. [Paras 6, 7] [137-D-F] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
F 
Nos. 1457-1463 of 2004 
From the Judgement and Order dated 03.09.2002 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. 
Application Nos. 5511 of 1994, 2797, 2798, 2800, 2801, 2804 
and 2805 of 1997. 
G 
.. 
Pinky Behra, Hemantika Wahi, for the Appellant. 
"""' 
M.R.Anand, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Tarun 
Satija, Lawyer's Knit & Co., for the Respondent. 
H 
136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
• 
A 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a 
learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court allowing seven 
B applications filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). In the applications prayer 
was made to quash the proceedings pending before four Judicial 
Magistrates and one Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom 
• 
three proceedings were pending. The cases were instituted on 
c the basis of complaints filed for alleged commission of offences 
punishable under Section 16 read with Section 7(1) and 7 (5) 
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 
'Act'). It was indicated in the complaints that the Food Inspector 
had gone to the shop of the respondents and had obtained 
sample in accordance with the Prevention of Food Adulteration 
D Rules, 1955 (in short the 'Rules'). The samples were sent to the 
public analyst and the report was received showing that the

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