SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 206

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
HARI SHANKAR AGGARWAL – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.297 OF 2021 (@ SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.5042 OF 2018)
Decided On : 10-03-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Ajay Jain, Jinendra Jain, Mitika, Tannu Vats, Cherry Aggarwal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Manish Singhvi, Milind Kumar, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceeding cannot proceed in absence of any specific allegation against accused.

Headnote:

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 7/16Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Cognizance of offence – When nomination was in Form VIII and duly sent and received, it cannot be rejected on the ground that it was sent on letter head of company – Averments in complaint itself clearly indicate that it was name of another person which was with Local Health Authority, hence it was he who was responsible for affairs of company and reference of appellant whose name was informed by Commercial Tax Department, has no relevance – There are no specific allegations against present appellant in complaint apart from that he was being impleaded as a nominee – No cognizance could have been taken against appellant for offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Order taking cognizance set aside. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 passed by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, by which Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1664/2018 filed by appellant has been dismissed.

Findings of Court:

High Court as well as Special Judge erred in rejecting the case of the appellant. It is further to be noticed that there are no specific allegations against the present appellant in the complaint apart from that he was being impleaded as a nominee.

Result : Appeal allowed.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, by which the Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1664/2018 filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. Brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are:- a complaint was filed by the Medical and Health Department, (Rajasthan) for offence under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the basis of inspection made on 02.03.2002 on Oswal Traders Shop. In a complaint, it was averred that on information received from Commercial Tax Department, Jaipur, the nominee of firm is Hari Shankar Aggarwal S/o Shri Vasudev Prasad Agarwal, therefore he has been made a party. In paragraph 11, it was further stated that according to information received from the Local Health Officer, Mathura the Director of M/s Bhola Baba Milk Food Industry is Devendra Singh Bhadauria, who was also impleaded as one of the party. The Judicial Magistrate, Jhalwar, Rajasthan, took cognizance of the offence and issued summon by order dated 04.08.2003. Against the order dated 04.08.2003, the appellant-Hari Shankar Aggarwal filed criminal case No.17 of 2017, challenging the order of the Trial Court dated 04.08.2003.

4. The case of the appellant is that he was not a nominee of the firm and one Devendra Singh Bhadauria was declared as nominee. The information regarding his nomination had already been submitted to the Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, which was received on 21.10.1995 and there being no allegation against the appellant, no cognizance of the offence could have taken against the appellant. The petition was dismissed by the Special Judge on 16.02.2018 against which the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was filed in the High Court, which has been rejected by the impugned judgment of the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on Annexure P-2, which is an information in Form VIII submitted to the Chief Medical Officer on 21.10.1995, submits that form nominating Devendra Singh Bhadauria, was sent by letter dated 21.02.1995 which was duly received by Chief Medical Officer on 21.10.1995. Hence, the complaint against the appellant alleging himself to be nominee ought not to have been taken cognizance. It is submitted that a copy of letter dated 21.02.1995 duly received by the Cheif Medical Officer on 21.10.1995 has been filed before the Courts below and the said document clearly proved that nominee was Devendra Singh Bhadauria and cognizance could have been taken against Devendra Singh Bhadauria and therefore the Courts below erred in dismissing the claim of the appellant.

5. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State submits that the document (Annexure P-2) dated 21.02.1995 claimed to be served on 21.10.1995, has not been believed by the Courts below. He has referred to the reasons given in the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Special Judge, (NDPS) Jhalwar, Rajasthan. He submits that there are reasons given by the Special Judge for not accepting the document. Hence, the claim of the appellant has rightly been rejected.

6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before we proceed and examine the respective contention of the parties, we need to reproduce paragraphs 10 and 11 of the complaint which are to the following effect:-

    “10. That the Krishna Brand Ghee procured by M/s Falaudi Trading Co. from Bhole Baba Milk Food Industry 181 Sindhi Colony Whose Bill No.3074 dated 05/03/2002 was produced from which it is clear that M/s Falaudi Trading Co. has procured Ghee from the said firm. From the information received from Commercial Tax Department, Jaipur the nominee of the said firm is Sh. Hari Shankar Aggarwal S/o Vasudev Aggarwal, therefore, he has also been made a party.

    11. That th


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top