LAL CHANDRA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially the present writ petition was connected with other writ petitions pertaining to writ petitions filed under Sections 272/273 IPC and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1956. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the writ petitions has been filed against the lodging of the First Information Report when on the same "cause of action" a complaint case was instituted against the Petitioner which amounts to double jeopardy, therefore, the writ petition may be heard and decided on this issue.

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the First Information Report lodged against the Petitioner vide Case Crime No. 633 of 2010 under Sections 272/273 IPC read with Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Police Station Kotwali Dehat District Mirzapur. Further relief has also been sought for staying the arrest of the Petitioner during investigation pursuant to the First Information Report A complaint dated 10.8.2010 was filed by the Food Inspector Mirzapur in the Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Mirzapur which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1645 of 2010 with the allegation that from the Petitioner who is running a grocery shop, a sample of turmeric was taken and sent for chemical analyst and the chemical analyst report was received on 9.7.2010 indicating that meta nil yellow colour was found which was not fit for human consumption and the sample was adulterated. After obtaining sanction from the District Magistrate, the aforesaid complaint was filed under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the cognizance was taken by the learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13.8.2010 whereby the Petitioner was summoned to appear before the Court on 13.9.2010. The main plank of the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that in respect of the same cause of action, the impugned First Information Report was lodged on 25.8.2010 on the basis of the same sample report of the public analyst under Section 272/273 IPC and Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, the Petitioner is wrongly sought to be prosecuted twice, firstly on the basis of the complaint and subsequent there to on the basis of the First Information Report.

(3.) In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, 2004 AIR(SC) 4320 and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, 2001 AIR(SC) 2637, for the proposition that the prosecution of the Petitioner on the basis of the First Information Report is absolutely illegal, unjust and amounts to sheer harassment as it was contended that two First information Reports are not permissible in respect to one and the same incident because the subsequent First Information Report is hit by Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure.