Prosecution must prove knowledge of food adulteration for liability under IPC; mere possession does not suffice for charges under Sections 273 and 420.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Cause of action and questions involved in both criminal misc. petitions are, more or less, similar, hence, with the consent of the parties, both the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners, who are retailers and engaged in sale and purchase of pure ghee, have challenged common order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Srimadhopur, District Sikar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19/2013 and 18/2013 filed by the petitioners respectively whereby revision petitions filed by the petitioners have been partly allowed as well as order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Srimadhopur, District Sikar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Case No. 703/2010, whereby the trial court directed to frame charges of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as ' IPC ') and Section 7 /16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1954') against the petitioners, has also been challenged with a further prayer to quash the proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 703/2010 titled as State Vs. Ajay Dayma pending before the trial court.

3. It is stated that Food Inspector, Enforcement Officer and SHO, Police Station Reengus, District Sikar, on 30.09.2009, inspected the premises of the petitioners and purchased Mawa Pure Ghee weighing one liter. Such purchased ghee were treated as sample and after sealing the same in a bottle, it was forwarded to Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis and in its report, the Public Analyst found Mawa Pure Ghee to be adulterated. Accordingly, FIR No. 311/2009 was registered at Police Station Reengus, District Sikar for commission of offences punishable under Sections 272 , 273, 420 IPC . After investigation, charge sheet was filed against manufacturer Ajay Dayma, Director of M/s. Rajasthan Milk Food Products as also the retailers-petitioners, namely, Raj Kumar Sharma, Naresh Kumar Vadhwani and other retailers for committing offences punishable under Sections 420 and 273 as also Section 7 /16 of the Act of 1954. Thereafter, subsequent to taking cognizance against the petitioners, vide order dated 27.08.2012, the trial court directed for farming charges for commission of offences punishable under and 273 as also /16 of Act of 1954 against the petitioners and other retailers. The petitioners challenged the order of framing charge dated 27.08.2012 by way of filing separate criminal revision petitions. Though, revision petitions were partly allowed by the revisional court vide common order dated 01.03.2013, the revisional court quashed charge framing order passed by the trial court under /16 of the Act of 1954 against the petitioners, yet the revisional court maintained order of framing charge by the trial court against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 273 and 420 . So far as manufacturer Ajay Dayma is concerned, charge framed by the trial court against him even under Section 420 has also been quashed by the revisional court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisional court has committed serious error of law and jurisdiction while passing impugned order dated 01.03.2013 for the reason that when charge for offence punishable under Section 7 /16 of the Act of 1954 has been quashed by the