The main legal point established is that charges must be supported by evidence, and the absence of evidence can lead to the quashing of charges.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. Heard learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the material available on record.

2. The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners herein for assailing the order dated 17.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Revision No. 04/2012 (56/2012) whereby, the learned revisional court dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners and affirmed the order dated 24.02.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No. 384/2007 framing charge against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420 and 272 of the IPC and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

3. Succinctly stated the facts relevant and essential for the disposal of this misc. petition are noted here in below:-

The SHO, Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Jodhpur received an information on 07.05.2007 that the petitioner Bharat Kumar and his associates of the firm Vashudev & Company Limited situated at Sardar Market, Ghantaghar, Jodhpur were selling spurious ghee representing it to be pure and in this manner, they were cheating the public. The Food Inspector was intimated to reach the spot. Accordingly, the SHO, Police Station Sadar Kotwali as well as the Food Inspector, Jodhpur reached the premises of the firm Vashudev & Company Limited. The petitioner Bharat Kumar was found present in the shop. While the police officials undertook the search, Mohandas also arrived there and became alarmed on seeing the police party. The search of the firm's premises was made by the police officers in the presence of motbirs and Food Inspector. Empty and filled tins of ghee, iron caps, packing machine, pasteboard of cartons, labels of numerous companies, etc. were found inside the premises which were seized. Both the accused persons were arrested and brought to the Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Jodhpur where, FIR No. 72/2007 came to be registered against them for the offences under Sections 420 and 272 of the IPC and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act.

4. It may be stated here that the Food Inspector also collected samples from the food article styled to be ghee and after receiving the report of the Public Analyst, a complaint has been filed against the petitioner No. 1 Bharat Kumar in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur for the offences under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

As per the report of the public analyst, the sample of food article (ghee) was found to be adulterated upon analysis but no opinion was given that it was spurious or injurious to health.

In the present case registered on the police report, one sample of the food article styled to be ghee was forwarded to the State Central Public Health Laboratory from where a report dated 05.06.2007 was received with the following opinion/conclusion:

"The sample of ghee bearing L(H)A Code & Sl. No. M-3529 is adulterated as it does not conform to the prescribed standards of PFA Rules, 1955."

5. Be that as it may. After concluding investigation, the investigating officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420 and 272 of the IPC and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The learned Magistrate, framed charges against the petitioners for these very offences by order dated 24.02.2012. Being aggrieved of the order dated 24.02.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioners preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned revisional court vide order dated 17.05.2012. Thereupon, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned orders and all proceedings sought to be taken against them in furtherance thereof.

6. Shri Hastimal Saraswat, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently contended that prima facie ingredients of the offences alleged a