S NAGRAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are petitions against the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing framing of notice under Section 272/273 IPC, which was challenged before the Sessions Court by way of a revision petition, which was also dismissed, and hence, separate petitions under Section 482 Cr.EC. have been filed. In the Crl.M.C No. 833/2001, the facts are one Mazhar Ansari along With his wife was treated at AIIMS for alleged epidemic dropsy. The police had recorded the statement of Mazhar Ansari, wherein he had stated that he had purchased one packet of Dhara Mustard Oil from Jamia Millia Super Bazar, Delhi. After consuming the same, he developed medical complications which were diagnosed as dropsy. On his statement, an FIR bearing No. 804/1998, under Section 324/272/273 IPC was registered by P.S. Sri Niwas Puri, New Delhi. The police also seized the open packet of Dhara Oil. The oil was sent to the Public Analyst of Directorate of Prevention of Food Adulteration, Food Laboratory, Government of India, who opined that the mustard oil is adulterated, on account of presence of argemone oil, which is responsible for causing dropsy. The present petitioner was a Junior Executive (Quality) with M/s National Dairy Development Board and he was also appointed as a nominee under Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Since, he was alleged to be responsible for checking the quality control before pack- aging of mustard oil, therefore, the case was registered against him and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against him for an offence under Section 324/272/273 IPC. The learned Magistrate after hearing arguments framed a notice on 13.07.2000 against the petitioner under Section 272/ 273 IPC while as no notice under Section 324 IPC was given. The petitioner had assailed the framing of notice under Section 272/273 IPC on the ground that there was absence of mens reason his part which was prima facie to be established before a notice is given for an offence under the Indian Penal Code, therefore, it had been contended that he deserves to be discharged. The revision petition of the petitioner for discharge was rejected by Ms. Ina Malhotra, the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 01.02.2001, and hence, the present petition bearing No. 833/2001 was filed.

(2.) In Crl.M.C. No. 837/2001, an FIR was registered in similar circumstances. On the basis of a complaint of Ishrat Ahsan, an FIR No. 798/1998, under Section 324/272/273 IPC by P.S. Sri Niwaspuri, New Delhi was registered. The learned Magistrate had directed framing of notice on 14.07.2000. In this case, FIR was registered only under Section 272/273 IPC and a revision petition was preferred by the nominee S. Nagrajan, raising the same plea of absence of mens rea apart from other pleas which was dismissed by the same Sessions Judge on 01.02.2001.

(3.) In the Crl. M. C. No. 2157/2004, on 13.08.1998, an FIR bearing No. 528/1998, under Section 272/273 IPC, by P.S. Bhajanpuri, Delhi was registered on the complaint of one Beeru who had fallen sick after eating vegetables prepared in the mustard oil. The learned ASJ discharged the petitioner on 02.2.2001 of commission of offence under Section 328 IPC and remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate for offences under Section 272/273 IPC. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 21.03.2001 directed the framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 272/273 IPC. The petitioner moved an application on 01.12.2001, seeking drop- ping of proceedings on the ground that there was no material to attract the in- gredients of Section 272/273 IPC which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 07.04.2004, and hence, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was filed for quashing of the proceedings.