JUDGMENT :

Rameshwar Vyas, J.

1. Both the aforesaid criminal misc. petitions shall stand decided by this common order as they arise out of the same incident.

2. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 29.01.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 01/2018 (C.I.S. No. 33/2018), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the Order dated 03.10.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No. 1097/2017 (State of Rajasthan v. Champalal & Anr.) framing charges under Section 420 I.P.C., Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Section 64 of Copyright Act, 1957 against the petitioners, was affirmed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court committed grave error in framing charges under Sections 420 I.P.C., Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (afterwards referred to as "the PFA Act") and Section 64 of Copyright Act, 1957 (afterwards referred to as "the Act of 1957") against the petitioners. He further submitted that no fraud was committed with anybody, therefore, offence under Section 420 I.P.C. was not made out. He further submitted that the police was not entitled to collect the samples under the provisions of the PFA Act. The requirement of provisions of the PFA Act was not fulfilled, hence, the Court could not have taken cognizance under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act. He further submitted that since the prosecution failed to establish that any violation of the provisions of the Act of 1957 was committed by the petitioners, therefore, no offence under the Act of 1957 was made out against them. He further submitted that the trial court committed error in framing the charges, which was affirmed by the revisional court in an illegal manner and without going into relevant provisions of law. Therefore, it is prayed that the orders impugned passed by both the courts below may be quashed and set aside and the petitioners may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Mohan Das & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2842/2012) decided on 16.12.2020 & Anand v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 342/2009) decided on 27.04.2012 and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shambhu Dayal Agrawal and Ors. v. State of Gujarat reported in (2003) 2 GLR 1620.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the orders impugned passed by both the courts below, submitted that as per prosecution story, on a secret information, the police searched a car and found one Pawan Jain with 8 tines of alleged adulterated pure ghee. During investigation, the police found that Pawan Jain purchased ghee from Champalal Soni and Raju. During search of their rented premises, some material was found for making artificial pure ghee. As per prosecution case, Goverdhan was working in the factory for making adulterated ghee. After investigation, the police charge-sheeted all the five accused persons under Sections 420 I.P.C., Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 80.16A of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Section 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case, the petitioners have not been properly charge-sheeted under the relevant provisions of law. The trial court has also overlooked applicable provisions while framing the charges. For the purpose of framing charge under Section 420 of I.P.C., dishonest indu