S. NAGRAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Crl. Rev. P. 321/2004 and Crl.M.C. No. 2695/2004 both titled S.Nagrajan Vs. State. Both these petitions are taken up together for disposal by a common order as the facts are similar and a common question is involved in the instant matter, as to whether the cognizance of an offence can be taken twice? Secondly, as to whether the second complaint in respect of the same offence of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can be filed? Thirdly, as to whether the second complaint filed under the Act, which obviously has to be filed after obtaining the sanction from the competent Authority under Section 20 of the Act on the basis of a public analyst report can be filed when the said report of public analyst itself stands superseded. In order to appreciate all these three legal submissions, it would be pertinent here to give the brief facts of both the cases.

(2.) IN Crl. M.C. No. 2695/2004, a complaint was filed by the Department of Prevention of Food Adulteration against Madan Lal of M/s Popular Store, vendor -cum -proprietor, M/s.P.K.Agency supplier and National Diary Development Board, manufacturer. The allegations made in the complaint were that on 24.08.1999 at about 6.00 PM, Food Inspector Mr.Pawan Bhatnagar had purchased a sample of double filtered mustard oil from Madan Lal, M/s.Popular Store, Shop No. 34, Sector -6, R.K.Puram, New Delhi where the said article of food was found stored for sale. The sample consisting of approximately 1 liter (910 gram) of double filtered mustard oil (ready for sale of human consumption) was taken from original sealed tetra pack bearing label decoration. Three samples were prepared and one of the samples was got analyzed from the public analyst. The sample was reported to be not conforming to the standards laid down under item No. A.17.06 of Appendix 'B' of PFA Rules, 1955 because the sample showed presence of Argemone oil which is injurious to health. It was observed that it was likely to cause death on consumption. On the basis of the said public analyst report, a complaint was filed against the aforesaid three accused persons for having committed an offence under the Act. This complaint was filed on 04.09.1998 against all the three accused persons. The Court on filing of the complaint directed the issuance of summons as it was a complaint filed by the public servant in the ordinary discharge of his duties. On 15.07.1999, while the matter was pending for service of the respondents, the Local Health Authority of PFA filed a fresh complaint against Mukesh Kumar, Proprietor and Manager of M/s.Popular Store, M/s P. K. Agency, a partnership firm consisting of two partners namely K.K.Kalsi and Sh.Parun Kalsi, Gujarat Co -operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., sole selling agent of NDDB, Mr.K.K. Bhadra, Assistant Manager (Sale) of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. as a Nominee, S. Nagrajan, Quality Control Officer, NDDB, Noida as Nominee of the Manufacturing Company NDDB and Mr.N.K.Chawla, Executive Director, NDDB alleging the same facts as were alleged in the earlier complaint. On the basis of the second complaint, the learned Magistrate passed a detailed order on 26.07.1999, the exact language of the order is as under:

(3.) THE petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Court which was dismissed on 04.09.2004 by Sh.S.N.Dhingra, (as his Lordship then was). It was held that the second complaint which was filed by the Department of Prevention of Food Adulteration was in the nature of supplementary complaint to the first one and this was permissible as is done in the police case under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It was also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the offence of sale, distribution, manufacturing etc. of adulterated article of food are distinct offences and a complaint could be filed for each of them separately, therefore, it was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the complaint which has been filed by the petitioner in the instant case could be treated as a complaint against the vender and distributor while as the second complaint was essentially against the manufacturer and the sole selling agent. Accordingly, the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed.