Prima facie evidence based on the nature of the substance and the laboratory report can justify framing charges under the relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner has challenged order dated 24.02.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Desuri, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as the "revisional Court"), whereby the order dated 30.06.2015, passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Desuri, District Pali has been affirmed. By the said order dated 30.06.2015, the trial Court had framed the charges against the petitioner under Sections 420, 482, 483, 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 102, 103, 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999.

2. Mr. Shrimali, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Courts' attention towards the laboratory report dated 16.02.2010 and pointed out that the Public Analyst did not report the seized article from the petitioner (ghee) to be noxious and therefore, the necessary ingredients under Section 272 of Indian Penal Code are absent and thus, charges could not be framed against the petitioner under Section 272/273 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is further contended that since, the Investigating Officer has not indicated names of the persons, who had been cheated by purchasing ghee sold by the petitioner, no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out.

4. In relation to the provisions under Sections 102, 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1999"), it was contended that no person holding trade mark of the goods has lodged any complaint and thus, the Court could not have taken cognizance against the petitioner for the alleged offences under the Act of 1999.

5. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in case of Mohan Das v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2021) 1 CrLR (Raj)184.

6. Mr. Singh, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the charges have been framed by the trial Court after due consideration of the material available on record and the revisional Court has dealt with all the submissions and arguments advanced by the petitioner in detail. Hence, this Court, in its limited jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, should not interfere.

7. Joining the case on merit, learned counsel submitted that the laboratory report dated 16.12.2010, clearly shows that the product being manufactured and sold by the petitioner was not even ghee. The petitioner was found storing and selling such substance claiming it to be ghee and therefore, it is a clear case of cheating the people attracting Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. In relation to charges framed under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, learned Public Prosecutor argued that maybe the laboratory report does not state the substance to be noxious, but the fact that the sample drawn from petitioner's possession was not even ghee, itself is sufficient to prosecute the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 03.12.2019, rendered in the case of Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam & (2020) 2 SCC 2170 and submitted that the Apex Court in para No. 14, 15, 16 of the judgment has laid down that the Courts should only see the possibility of commission of offence while framing the charges and are not required to record detailed reasons or categorical findings as to whether the offence has been committed or not.

10. Heard and perused the material available on record.

11. At this stage it would be relevant to advert to the contents of the report dated 16.02.2010. The report of Public Analyst is reproduced hereunder:-

" The above mentioned samples of Ghee, Marked "S1", "S3", "S4" and "S5" are not found to be of Ghee.

Sample of Ghee, marked "S2", conforms to the prescribed standards as laid down under item A 11.02.2015 of Appendix "B" of PFA Rules, 1955.

Sample of Refined Soyabean Oil, marked "S6" is adulterated as it does not conform to the prescribed Standards as laid d