JEEVANCHANDRA MANOHAR KARNIK vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 25239 of 2017 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18181 of 2018 With R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11338 of 2017 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of
2019 In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18181 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL ==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? No
==========================================================
PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD.
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR ADVOCATE for J SAGAR ASSOCIATES(8162)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS DILBUR CONTRACTOR for MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS M D MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 06/05/2022

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	Yes
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	No

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore for M/s. J. Sagar Associates for the petitioners, learned Advocate Ms. Dilbur Contractor for learned Advocate Ms. Kalpna K. Raval for the respondent No.2 and learned Advocate Ms. M.D. Mehta for the respondent-State in Criminal Misc.

Application Nos. 25239 of 2017 and 18181 of 2018.

2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore with learned Advocate Ms. Megha Jani for the petitioners, learned Advocate Mr. Masum K. Shah for learned Advocate Mr. K.I. Shah for respondent No.2 and learned APP Ms. M.D. Mehta for the respondent- State in Criminal Misc.

Application No. 11338 of 2017.

3. Issue Rule in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 25239 of 2017 and 18181 of 2018, returnable forthwith. Learned Advocates for the respective respondents waive service of Rule, and whereas Rule has already been issued in Criminal Misc. Application No. 11338 of 2017.

4. With consent of the parties, the present petitions are taken up for final hearing.

5. At the outset learned Senior Advocate Mr. Thakore for M/s. J. Sagar Associates for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 25239 of 2017 and 18181 of 2018 and also appearing with learned Advocate Ms. Megha Jani for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Application No. 11338 of 2017 has relied upon the communication dated 02.08.2016 issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India being statutory authority established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, to the Commissioners of Food Safety of all States and Union territories, whereby it is stated that the Commissioners of Food Safety or States / Union territories may examine pending cases under the Prevention of Food Adultration Act which are pending in various courts and tribunals across the country in a sizable number where offences alleged may not be very serious and penalties/ punishments prescribed may not be substantial, may be withdrawn to ensure that the judicial system is not burdened unnecessarily and scarce resources may be deployed in effective implementation of the provisions of the FSS Act and submitted that while the present issue involves complex questions of law, more particularly with regard to the applicability of the provisions of repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the provisions of the new statute being the FSS Act and since the offences alleged are of misbranding and furthermore since the provisions of Sections 52 and 58 providing for penalty of fine only, therefore the petitioners, without admitting guilt on their part, are ready and willing to pay any amount as suggested by this Court.

6. As against the same, learned Advocate Ms. Contractor for learned Advocate Ms. Kalpana K. Raval for the respondent- Corporation in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 25239 of 2017 and 18181 of 2018 has submitted that the respondent- Corporation is not agreeable to any such proposal and whereas the said matters are taken for hearing on merits.

7. As far as Criminal Misc. Application No. 11338 of 2017 is concerned, learned Advocate Mr. Masum K. Shah appearing for the respondent No.2- Food Inspector of the Corporation, under instructions of Food Inspector Mr. D.K. Patel who is permitted to remain present through video conferencing having regard to the communication dated 02.08.2016, submitted that they are ready to abide by such proposal subject to direction of this Court to pay some amount. Thus, appropriate orders would be passed in the said petition in the concluding part of this judgment.

8. Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 25239 of 2017 and 18181 of 2018 challenge the Criminal Case No.810631 of 2011 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.8, Ahmedabad and whereas ancillary prayers have also been sought for. Insofar as Criminal Misc. Application No. 11338 of 2017 is concerned, the same seeks to challenge the Criminal Case No.40 of 2011 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat.

9. It would be perti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document