Issue
Facts
Reasoning
Decision
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
v.
Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala And Others
(Supreme Court Of India)
Criminal Appeal No. 749 Of 1980 | 01-12-1982
1. 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 11. This is a case where the facts are almost identical with the facts of Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1980 which we have decided today, with a vital difference which we shall point out hereafter.
2. In this case 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. The 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, Sl, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay. A complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate against accused Nos. I to 12 under sections 7116117 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act mentioning the facts stated above.
3. The High Court was of the view that the complaint did not disclose any offence and adopting a similar line of reasoning, as in criminal appeal No. 701 of 1980, quashed the proceedings against respondent Nos. I 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 allegations against the accused-respondents are to be found in para S of the complaint which may be extracted thus:
"5, That accused Ram Kishan Bajaj is the Chairman, accused R.P. Neyatia is the Managing Director and accused Nos. 7 to 12 are the Directors of the Hindustan Su gar Mills Ltd. and were incharge of and responsible to it for the con duct of its business at the time of commission of offence."
Unlike 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 respondents 7 to 11 are the Directors of the Mill and were incharge of and responsible for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offence whereas in the other case the complaint has merely drawn a presumption without any averment.
4. In the instant case, a clear averment has been made regarding the active role played by the respondents and the extent of their 1 liability. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that para 5 of the complaint is vague and does not implicate respondents I to 11. As to what would be the evidence against the respondents is not a matter to be considered at this stage and would have to be proved at the trial. We have already held that for the purpose of quashing the proceedings only the allegations set forth in the complaint have to be seen and nothing further.
5. From a perusal of the various clauses of the complaint, including para 5, it is quite clear that a prima facie case for summoning the accused has been made out and the High Court was absolutely wrong in holding that the allegations mad e in para S are vague. The High Court failed to consider that the allegations were quite clear and explicit so as to be sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence against the accused.
6. Further details would have to be given in the shape of evidence when the trial proceeds and in view of the clear allegations made in para 5 of the complaint, we are not in a position to agree with the High Court that it is a fit case in which it should have exercised its discretion under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in order to quash the proceedings against the accused-respondents. For these reasons, therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Metropolitan Magistrate as a result of which all the accused will now be summoned and placed for trial in accordance with law.
7. Appeal allowed.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties B.P. Maheshwari, V.S. Desai, Arvind Minocha, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SYED MURTAZA FAZAL ALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. VENKATARAMIAH
Eq Citation
(1983) 1 SCC 9
[1983] 1 SCR 895
AIR 1983 SC 158
1983 CRILJ 172
1982 (2) SCALE 1118
(1983) SCC (CRI) 123
23 (1983) DLT 38 (SN)
LQ/SC/1982/186
HeadNote
A. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Ss. 7, 11, 16, 17 and Ss. 482 and 201 CrPC — Cognizance of offence — Summoning of accused — When proper — Prima facie case — Complaint — Vagueness — Held, for the purpose of quashing the proceedings only the allegations set forth in the complaint have to be seen and nothing further — In the instant case a clear averment has been made regarding the active role played by the respondents and the extent of their liability — As to what would be the evidence against the respondents is not a matter to be considered at this stage and would have to be proved at the trial — Further details would have to be given in the shape of evidence when the trial proceeds — In view of the clear allegations made in the complaint, the High Court was absolutely wrong in holding that the allegations are vague — High Court failed to consider that the allegations were quite clear and explicit so as to be sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence against the accused — Further, the complaint gives complete details of the role played by the respondents and the extent of their liability — Complaint of Adulteration — Prima facie case — Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 11 — Ingredients of offence — Vagueness — Held, further details would have to be given in the shape of evidence when the trial proceeds — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 482 and 201(1) — Quashing of proceedings — When proper — Cognizance of offence — Summoning of accused — When proper — Prima facie case — Complaint of Adulteration — Vagueness — Held, for the purpose of quashing the proceedings only the allegations set forth in the complaint have to be seen and nothing further — In the instant case a clear averment has been made regarding the active role played by the respondents and the extent of their liability — As to what would be the evidence against the respondents is not a matter to be considered at this stage and would have to be proved at the trial — Further details would have to be given in the shape of evidence when the trial proceeds — In view of the clear allegations made in the complaint, the High Court was absolutely wrong in holding that the allegations are vague — High Court failed to consider that the allegations were quite clear and explicit so as to be sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence against the accused — Further, the complaint gives complete details of the role played by the respondents and the extent of their liability — Complaint of Adulteration — Prima facie case — Ingredients of offence — Vagueness — Held, further details would have to be given in the shape of evidence when the trial proceeds — Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Ss. 482 and 201(1) — Quashing of proceedings — When proper — Cognizance of offence — Summoning of accused — When proper — Prima facie case — Complaint of Adulteration — Vagueness — Held, for the purpose of quashing the proceedings only the allegations set forth in the complaint have to be seen and nothing further — In the instant case a clear averment has been made regarding the active role played by the respondents and the extent of their liability — As to what would be the evidence against the respondents is not a matter to be considered at this stage and would have to be proved at the trial — In view of the clear allegations made in the complaint, the High Court was absolutely wrong in holding that the allegations are vague — High Court failed to consider that the allegations were quite clear and explicit so as to be sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence against the accused — Further, the complaint gives complete details of the role played by the respondents and the extent of their liability — Complaint of Adulteration — Prima facie case — Ingredients of offence — Vagueness — Held, further details would have to be given in the shape of evidence when the trial proceeds — Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Ss. 482 and 201(1) — Quashing of proceedings — When proper — Cognizance of offence — Summoning of accused — When proper — Prima facie case — Complaint of Adulteration — Vagueness — Held, for the purpose of quashing the proceedings only the allegations set forth in the complaint have to be seen and nothing further — In the instant case a clear averment has been made regarding the active role played by the respondents and the extent of their liability — As to what would be the evidence against the respondents is not a matter to be considered at this stage and would have to be proved at the trial — In view of the clear allegations made in the complaint, the High Court was absolutely wrong in holding that the allegations are vague — High Court failed to consider that the allegations were quite clear and explicit so as to be sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence against the accused — Further,
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
