PREM PANDHI Vs. MAHESH GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G .L.Oza, J 1. This revision petition bas been filed by the petitioners against an order dated 30th October 1978 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore directing issue of process in a private complaint filed by the non -applicant against the petitioners under sections 273 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are Directors of the Cad burry India Limited, Bombay and partners of Model Agencies, Indore.

(2.) THE non -applicant -complainant filed a complaint against these petitioners on 18 -10 -1978 alleging that on 3rd August 1978 complainant purchased a piece of Cadburry chocolate from the shop Super Selection Departmental Stores. New Palasia, Indore owned by one Bharat Kumar Bhandari who has not been joined as an accused but bas been examined as a witness for the prosecution, it was alleged by the complainant that on opening the wrapper he found that red ants were sticking to the chocolate which according to the complainant was unfit for human consumption. It is also alleged that the complainant would not have purchased it if he had known that the chocolate is in that state. After filing of the complaint the complainant examined himself and also Bharat Kumar Bhandari and produced one Panchnama Ex. P -1 and a certificate Ex. P -2 written by Bbarat Kumar Bhandari on the basis of the evidence of these two witnesses the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order issuing process to the petitioners and against this order the present revision petition has been tiled by the petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners as regards the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the non -applicant at out the maintainability of the revision referred to the decision reported in Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others (AIR 1977 SC 2185) and contended that in view of this decision it is now well -settled that against such an order a revision petition is competent. He also contended that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that a revision petition is not competent, this Court can exercise inherent powers to quash the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Babulal v. Ghanshyamdas Birla and others (Criminal Revision No. 328 of 1974 decided on 19 -4 -1976).