Sharan Bihari Agrawal vs M.K. Gupta

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(MP) 357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Himanshu Joshi, J.
Sharan Bihari Agrawal And Others – Petitioners
Versus
M.K. Gupta – Respondent
Misc. Criminal case No. 7072 of 2016
Criminal Revision No. 1703 of 2016
Decided On : 15-06-2026

Important Points

Compliance with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is mandatory. Denial of the accused's substantive right to have samples analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory, especially when combined with a lack of evidence establishing the accused's role in the business, warrants quashing of criminal proceedings.

Subject

Criminal Law - Food Adulteration

Act Referred

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT: S.13(2), S.16, S.7
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.482

Headnote

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7, 13(2) and 16 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Compliance with Section 13(2) is mandatory - The right conferred upon an accused to have the counterpart sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory is a valuable and substantive right because the certificate issued by the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence regarding the quality of the sample (Para 13) - Failure to establish that copies of the Public Analyst's report and notice regarding the right to seek examination by the Central Food Laboratory were duly served upon the accused causes serious prejudice to the defence and strikes at the root of the prosecution (Para 16).

(B) Criminal Proceedings - Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Where there is no specific averment explaining the role of the accused in the conduct of the business and no material establishing direct participation in the alleged offence, continuation of prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law (Paras 14, 15 and 19).

Facts of the case:
A food inspector inspected a catering contractor's pantry car and found coriander powder which was subsequently reported as adulterated by a Public Analyst. Based on a statement by the manager present at the time of inspection, a complaint was filed against the partners of the catering firm. The applicants challenged the proceedings and the order framing charges, contending that some were not partners at the relevant time and that the mandatory statutory right to have the sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory was denied due to non-service of the analyst's report.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaint lacked specific averments regarding the roles of the applicants in the conduct of the business. Furthermore, partnership deeds indicated that some applicants were not partners at the time of inspection. Most critically, the prosecution failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 13(2) of the Act regarding the communication of the right to seek a second analysis of the sample.

Issues: Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants was sustainable given the lack of evidence regarding their liability and the non-compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 13(2) is mandatory and the denial of the statutory right to have a sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory, coupled with the absence of specific material establishing the accused's responsibility for the conduct of the business, constitutes an abuse of the process of law and warrants the quashing of proceedings.

Result: M.Cr.C. No. 7072/2016 allowed; Criminal Case quashed. Criminal Revision No. 1703/2016 allowed; order framing charges set aside.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Shivendra Pandey, Advocate

ORDER :

Himanshu Joshi, J.

Since M.Cr.C. No. 7072/2016 and Criminal Revision No. 1703/2016 arise out of the same prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, involve common parties, facts and questions of law, both matters were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order to avoid conflicting findings and for the sake of judicial convenience.

2. The applicants in M.Cr.C. No.7072/2016 have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of Criminal Case No.534/2005 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna arising out of a complaint filed under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In Criminal Revision No.1703/2016, the very same applicants have challenged the order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the learned JMFC, Satna in Criminal Case No.6035/2007 whereby charges were framed against them under Sections 7 and 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act of 1954.

3. The facts, briefly stated, are that on 14.07.2004 the respondent/Food Inspector inspected the pantry car of Varanasi-Pune Gyan Ganga Express. During inspection one Brahmprakash was found present in the pantry car and represented himself to be the Manager of M/s R.K. Enterprises, the catering contractor. It was alleged that Brahmprakash disclosed the names of applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 as partners of the said firm. During inspection approximately two kilograms of coriander powder was found stored in an open container. Suspecting adulteration, the Food Inspector served notice in Form VI and purchased 750 grams of coriander powder for analysis. The sample was divided into three equal parts and sealed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. One part was forwarded to the Public Analyst, Bhopal and the remaining parts were deposited with the Local Health Authority.

4. According to the prosecution, the report of the Public Analyst indicated that the coriander powder was adulterated. Thereafter sanction for prosecution was obtained on 27.04.2005 and a complaint was filed before the learned JMFC, Satna against Brahmprakash and the present applicants for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The complaint and accompanying documents have been filed as Annexure A-1 in both matters.

5 . The applicants have placed on record the deposition and cross- examination of the complainant/Food Inspector dated 17.03.2015 as Annexure A-2 and the deposition and cross-examination of witness Rajesh Kumar as Annexure A-3. The applicants have further relied upon partnership deeds filed as Annexure A-4 to contend that applicant Nos.1 and 3 were not partners of M/s R.K. Enterprises on the date of inspection. In Criminal Revision No.1703/2016, the order framing charges dated 19.02.2016 has been filed as Annexure A-5.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the entire prosecution against the applicants is an abuse of the process of law. It was argued that except for a bald statement allegedly made by Brahmprakash, there is no material on record to demonstrate that the applicants were in charge of or responsible for the conduct of business of M/s R.K. Enterprises at the relevant time. It was contended that neither the complaint nor the evidence recorded before the trial Court contains any specific allegation attributing any overt act to the applicants. Learned counsel further submitted that the partnership deeds filed as Annexure A-4 clearly demonstrate that applicant Nos.1 and 3 were not partners of the firm on the date of inspection and, therefore, fastening criminal liability upon them is wholly unsustainable.

7. It was further argued that the mandatory provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act have not been complied with. Learned counsel submitted that the valuable statutory right conferred upon an accused to seek e