SHEIKH ABRAR SHEIKH GAFFAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Mohta, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mrs. Haider, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

(2.) The applicants are arrayed for the offence punishable under Ss. 188, 272, 273, 328 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC read with Ss. 26 (2) (i), 27 (2) (e), 30 (2) (a) and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short "the FSS Act", hereinafter) vide Crime No.0488/2021 dtd. 20/11/2021. The applicants have been arrested on 20/11/2021. The charge-sheet has been filed on 19/01/2022 vide R.C.C. No.41/2022.

(3.) Mr. Mohta, learned Counsel for the applicants submits, that the allegations against the applicants are false and they have been falsely implicated. He further, by inviting my attention to Sec. 11 of IPC submits, that the word "person" has been defined therein and so also the word "public" has been defined in Sec. 12 of IPC. Inviting my attention to Chapter XVI of IPC and specifically Sec. 301 of IPC, it is submitted that the word used therein, is "any person", which is also the word used in Sec. 328 of IPC and therefore, before imposing the said sec. , it has to be demonstrated, that such a person was in existence. Further inviting my attention to the form of charge under Sec. 328 of IPC, it is contended that it contemplates an individual person and not the public at large. Reliance is placed upon Madhukar Damu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (Supp) BCR 132 = 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. 581 (para 18), which holds that for the purpose of the offence under Sec. 328 of IPC to be complete, two ingredients are necessary (i) some person or persons should administer or causes to be taken by any person, any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug or other thing (ii) the intention of the person or persons mentioned in (i) should be to cause hurt to the person concerned or should be to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or there should be knowledge on the part of the person or persons that the result of his act or their act was likely to cause hurt to the concerned person and both these elements should exist conjunctively, then and then alone would the offence under Sec. 328 of IPC be complete and the person/s as the case may be, would be guilty of an offence (this was a case in appeal after the Trial Court had convicted the accused) and Joseph Kurian Philip Jose Vs. State of Kerala, (1994) 6 SCC 535 (para 8 and 10) [this was also a case on merits].