SHAILENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under S.482, Cr. P.C. seeking an order that the proceedings in complaint case No. 9 of 1991 State v. Gopal Das and others under S. 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, P. S. Kotwali Jhansi, pending in the court of Munsif Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jhansi may remain stayed by virtue of provision of S. 210(1), Cr. P.C. It is stated that an FIR has been lodged in respect of the same incident u/Ss. 332,352 and 427,IPC by the Chief Food Inspector, Jhansi. It is stated that the incident took place at the same time. One offence is an offence punishable under the provisions of the I.P.C. causing hindrance in discharge of the official duty of the Government servant, hurt and mischief, while other case is u/S. 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The two sets of offences are entirely different and distinct and there is no prohibition in law that proceedings in both the cases cannot be proceeded simultaneously. The provision of S. 210, Cr. P.C. are not attracted in such circumstances. The learned Counsel has not correctly appreciated the provision of S. 210, Cr. P.C. The purpose of S. 210, Cr. P.C. is that there may not be two conflicting contradictory results in a case. THIS is a procedure provided to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. The provision of S. 210, Cr. P.C. are quoted as under : "210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.-

(2.) THE cases u/S. 16(1)(c) of Food Adulteration Act and Ss. 332, 352 and 427 of I.P.C. are distinct and separate. It may be that in one and same transaction when the Food Inspector and his party reached the petitioners' shop for enquiry and taking sample of certain item of food material, the accused applicant committed offence by refusing to give sample of the item of food. THE offence u/S. 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was committed. In case in the course of commission of offence under S. 16(1)(c) of Food Adulteration Act the accused assaults the Food Inspector and his party men, commits mischief and also prevents the public servant to discharge his legal official duties, the offence u/ Ss. 332,352 and 427 Indian Penal Code are also committed. Since both the offences are distinct and separate, under provisions of different Acts, they are to be tried separately. THE other submission is to amalgamate both the proceedings and to direct that both the cases may proceed together. THEre is no such provision for amalgamating two criminal proceedings in the Code. THE submission is misconceived and cannot be allowed. Next arguments is that if both the cases are not allowed to proceed simultaneously, it would result in double jeopardy. This submission is also misconceived. As already observed both offences are distinct and separate under different Acts, the accused are liable to be tried for both the offences separately. THEre is no question of double jeopardy. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants. THE application u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. is accordingly dismissed summarily. Application dismissed.