Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2013

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6937 of 2011]

SUBHASH CHAND

…

APPELLANT

Vs.

STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION).

…

RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal, by special leave, is directed against

judgment and order dated 07/01/2011 passed by the High

Court of Delhi in Criminal Misc. Case No.427 of 2009

whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the

appellant holding that an appeal filed by the State against an

order of acquittal shall lie to the Sessions Court under

Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for

Page 2

JUDGMENT

short, “the Code”) and not under Section 378(4) of the

Code to the High Court.

3.

The appellant is the supplier-cum-manufacturer of the

food article namely Sweetened Carbonated Water. He is

carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Subhash

Soda Water Factory. On 6/6/1989 at about 4.15 p.m., one

P.N. Khatri, Food Inspector, purchased a sample of

sweetened carbonated water for analysis from one Daya

Chand Jain, Vendor-cum-Contractor of Canteen at Suraj

Cinema, Dhansa Road, Najafgarh, Delhi. After following the

necessary procedure, the sample was sent to the Public

Analyst for analysis. On analysis, the Public Analyst opined

that the sample does not conform to the prescribed

standard. After conclusion of the investigation, the

respondent–State through its Local Health Authority - P.K.

Jaiswal filed a Complaint bearing No.64 of 1991 against the

appellant and Daya Chand in the Court of the Metropolitan

Magistrate, New Delhi alleging that the appellant and the

said Daya Chand had violated the provisions of Sections

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

2(ia), (a), (b), (f), (h), (l), (m), Section 2(ix) (j), (k) and Section

24 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for

short, “PFA Act”) and Rule 32, Rule 42 (zzz)(i) and Rule 47

of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short,

“the Rules”) and committed an offence punishable under

Section 16(1)(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and the

Rules. Since Daya Chand died during the pendency of the

case, the case abated as against him. The appellant was

tried and acquitted by learned Magistrate by order dated

27/2/2007.

4.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 27/2/2007, the

respondent-State preferred Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2008 in

the Sessions Court under Section 378(1)(a) of the Code. The

appellant raised a preliminary objection in regard to the

maintainability of the said Appeal before the Sessions Court

in view of Section 378(4) of the Code. He contended that an

appeal arising from an order of acquittal in a complaint case

shall lie to the High Court. The said objection was rejected

by the Sessions Court by order dated 4/2/2009.

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

5.

Aggrieved by the said order dated 4/2/2009, the

appellant preferred Criminal Misc. Case No.427 of 2009

before the High Court. By order dated 9/7/2009, the High

Court held that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to

entertain an appeal filed in a complaint case and directed

that the appeal be transferred to it. Accordingly, Criminal

Appeal No.13 of 2008 pending before the Sessions Court was

transferred to the High Court and re-numbered as Criminal

Appeal No.642 of 2009.

6.

The respondent-State carried the said order dated

9/7/2009 to this court by Special Leave Petition (Crl.)

No.9880 of 2009 (Criminal Appeal No.1514 of 2010). By

order dated 13/8/2010, this court remanded the matter to

the High Court and directed that the matter be decided

afresh after taking into consideration Sections 378(1) and

378(4) of the Code and the relevant provisions of the PFA.

On rem