LAWS(GJH)-2023-8-881

DINESHBHAI GOPICHAND KESHWANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On August 04, 2023
Dineshbhai Gopichand Keshwani Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present application, the applicants have sought to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as " CrPC ") by praying for following reliefs:

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Utpal M. Panchal appearing for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi appearing for the respondent - State of Gujarat.

(3.) It is the case of the applicants that at the instance of respondent No.2 - Salimkhan Daudkhan, Head Constable, Pandesara Police Station, Surat, impugned FIR being I-CR No.68/2011 came to be lodged on 7/4/2011 with Pandesara Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Ss. 272 , 273 , 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as " IPC ") read with Ss. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On the very same day, Mr. M.J. Rana, Food Inspector of Surat Municipal Corporation had already taken action against the applicants and he also lodged the complaint being PFA Case No.44/2011 for the offence under Ss. 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "PFA Act"). Thus, on the same set of facts, two complaints for the same offence, filed by two different authorities and agencies and hence, applicants will have to face two trials for the same offence. Learned advocate Mr. Utpal Panchal has further submitted that the applicants have been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Surat in PFA Case No.44/2011 vide judgment dtd. 9/5/2018 against which Criminal Appeal No.168/2018 was filed by the present applicants and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat vide judgment dtd. 19/11/2022 partly allowed the criminal appeal. Hence, now, nothing remains further in the impugned FIR and therefore, the impugned FIR filed at the instance of respondent No.2 is required to be quashed and set aside.