Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 643/2012 & Crl.M.A.No. 2241/2014
MANOHAR LAL & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narang, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 643/2012 & Crl.M.A.No. 2241/2014
MANOHAR LAL & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narang, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE TH. PFA, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharraa, Additional Public Prosecutor forrespondent-
State
Through: Mr. Navin Sharraa, Additional Public Prosecutor forrespondent-
State
CRL.M.C. 644/2012 & Crl.M.A.No. 2243/2012
VIJAY KUMAR BAHAL &ORS. Petitioners
VIJAY KUMAR BAHAL &ORS. Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, Additional State
Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, Additional State
CRL.M.C. 645/2012 & Crl.M.A.No. 2245/2012
DHARAMPAL KUMAR &ORS. Petitioners
DHARAMPAL KUMAR &ORS. Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE THR. FOOD INSPECTOR Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional State Crl.M.C.Nos.643-645/2012 ^ ~
2015:DHC:11147
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional State Crl.M.C.Nos.643-645/2012 ^ ~
2015:DHC:11147
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
28.07.2015 In the above-captioned three petitions, quashing of complaint cases
NO.256/PFA/DA/06, No.255/PFA/DA/06 & No.249/PFA/DA/06 for the offence under Section 7 & 16 o/Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sought while relying upon decision of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Crl.M.C.No. 1047/2008 titled M/s Bunge India Private Limited &
Anr. V. The State &Anr. rendered on 20"' January, 2011.
With the consent of both the sides, these three petitions were heard together as quashing of the complaints in question is sought on identical grounds i.e. while placing reliance on the afore-cited decision and are being disposed ofby this common order.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are wholesalers-cum-suppliers of Dalda Vanaspati and it is submitted that M/s Bunge India Private Limited is the manufacturer of the
Dalda Vanaspati, which is said to be misbranded. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that once the complaints in question already stand quashed qua manufacturer i.e. M/s Bunge India Private Limited then there remains no justification to continue the proceedings against petitioners in the complaints in question.
Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that the case of petitioners is in fact covered by the afore cited decision.
Finding the case of petitioners to be covered by the decision in M/s
Crl.M.C.Nos.643-645/2012 Page 2 K BungeIndia Private Limited(supra), these three petitions are allowed and complaint cases No. 256/PFA/DA/06, No.255/PFA/DA/06 &
N0.249/PFA/DA/O6 for the offence under Section 7 & 16 0/Prevention ofFoodAdulteration Act, 1954 are quashed qua petitioners as well.
The petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge JULY 28, 2015 vn Crl.M.C.Nos.643-645/2012 Page3
28.07.2015 In the above-captioned three petitions, quashing of complaint cases
NO.256/PFA/DA/06, No.255/PFA/DA/06 & No.249/PFA/DA/06 for the offence under Section 7 & 16 o/Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sought while relying upon decision of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Crl.M.C.No. 1047/2008 titled M/s Bunge India Private Limited &
Anr. V. The State &Anr. rendered on 20"' January, 2011.
With the consent of both the sides, these three petitions were heard together as quashing of the complaints in question is sought on identical grounds i.e. while placing reliance on the afore-cited decision and are being disposed ofby this common order.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are wholesalers-cum-suppliers of Dalda Vanaspati and it is submitted that M/s Bunge India Private Limited is the manufacturer of the
Dalda Vanaspati, which is said to be misbranded. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that once the complaints in question already stand quashed qua manufacturer i.e. M/s Bunge India Private Limited then there remains no justification to continue the proceedings against petitioners in the complaints in question.
Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submits that the case of petitioners is in fact covered by the afore cited decision.
Finding the case of petitioners to be covered by the decision in M/s
Crl.M.C.Nos.643-645/2012 Page 2 K BungeIndia Private Limited(supra), these three petitions are allowed and complaint cases No. 256/PFA/DA/06, No.255/PFA/DA/06 &
N0.249/PFA/DA/O6 for the offence under Section 7 & 16 0/Prevention ofFoodAdulteration Act, 1954 are quashed qua petitioners as well.
The petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge JULY 28, 2015 vn Crl.M.C.Nos.643-645/2012 Page3
JUDGMENT