RAJKUMAR HUKUMCHAND CHORDIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri. V. D. Hon, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri. V. B. Nayak, learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor, for the respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the issuance of process against the petitioner by the Magistrate under Section 7 (i) read with Section 2 (ia) (a) (2) (1a) (m), 2 (1a) (k), 7 (vi) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 53 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. THE contention of the petitioner is that the Magistrate has issued process without application of mind to the materials on record and without verifying as to whether the petitioner is in any way concerned with the offence alleged to have been committed by other accused in the case in hand.

(3.) PERUSAL of the records discloses that the complainant in the complaint, filed before the Magistrate, in para 2 thereof, has stated that the petitioner is a partner of the firm M/s Pravin Masale Sales Division, 705 Ganesh Peth Dhor Ali, Pune 2 and manages the business and administration of the firm. Para 3 of the complaint further discloses that sample collected from the shop of the accused No. 1 Hanumandas was purchased by the said accused from M/s Pravin Masale Sales Division, 705, Ganesh Peth, Dhor Ali, Pune against bill No. 0580 dated 15-8-1986. The sample was obtained from the said product found in the shop of the accused No. 1. Para 10 of the compliant further discloses that the product from which the sample was drawn was being sold by the accused No. 1 in his shop after having been purchased from M/s Pravin Masale Sales Division, 705, Ganesh Peth, Dhor Ali Pune of which the petitioner, the accused No. 5 along with the other accused Nos. 2 to 4, is a partner. Further, perusal of the judgment passed by the Revision court discloses that the materials on record including the documents produced along with the complaint disclose that Pravin Masale Sales Division is having its head office at 705 Ganesh Peth, Dhor Ali, Pune and one office of the said firm is also shown at 590 Ganesh Peth, Pune and the same is reflected from the bill produced by M/s Kirti Kirana Shop run by the accused No. 1 and from which shop the sample was collected. The records also disclose that the complainant had obtained information regarding the partners of the firm from Pune Municipal Corporation under letter dated 4-12-1986 and it discloses the petitioner to be a partner of M/s. Pankaj Market 590 Ganesh Peth Pune -2. The Bill produced by M/s Kirti Kirana Shop disclosed that the address of Pravin Masale Sales Division at both places namely at 705 Ganesh Peth, Dhor Ali Pune as well as at 590 Ganesh Peth Pune. The materials further disclose that Health Department of the Pune Municipal corporation had further informed by its letter dated 5-12-1986 to the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration Beed that the petitioner herein is one of the partners of the firm namely M/s Pankaj Market, 590 Ganesh Peth Pune 2 and the licence for running the said sop was granted to the said firm on 4-9-1986 for the year 1986-87. Apart from all these materials on record, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was the partner of M/s Pravin Masale Sales Division having its registered office at 705, Ganesh Peth Pune. The sole contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had resigned from the said firm with effect from 1-8-1986 and, therefore, he was no more partner of the said firm on the date on which the sample was drawn from the shop of the accused No. 1. In other words, prima facie there is no dispute that the product, sample of which was drawn, was manufactured by M/s Pravin Masale Sales Division and that the petitioner was a partner of the said firm till 1-8-1986, It is also undisputed fact that the petitioner is not in a position to make any statement that the allegation that the petitioner had resigned from the said firm from 1-8-1986 was either made known to the Magistrate or any material in that regard was placed before the Magistrate or that the said information was made available to the complainant on the date when the complaint was filed. Undisputedly the complainant is a public servant and does not have any personal interest in the matter or any bias against the petitioner.