RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Rajinder Kumar son of Dawarka Dass, has come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.9.1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, framing charges against him as well as the charge dated 22.9.1989 framed against him and other accused persons by invoking the inherent powers of this court. The petitioner is accused No. 2. The two charges framed against him and others, which are sought to be quashed, read as follows :-

(2.) MR . H.L. Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, tried to persuade me in support of the prayer afore-mentioned by submitting inter alia as follows :- i) the charges have been framed on the basis of the second FIR, which was not permissible in law; ii) the charges, if at all, could have been framed for committal of offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and not under Sections 420/120- B/201 IPC. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act being a Special Act, it will have a overriding effect over the general provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The charges framed earlier under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were quashed by the High Court and thereafter it would not have been framed under the provisions of the Indian penal Code; iii) There was no material whatsoever before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate even to frame charges under Sections 420/120-B/201 of the Indian Penal Code; and iv) this criminal case has got a protracted history. It was submitted in 1983. Charges were framed by the impugned order in 1989 for quashing of which the Petitioner moved this Court and it has remained pending till date. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings.

(3.) THE questions urged cannot be decided on the basis of the mere affidavits filed in this Court by the Petitioner, to which counter has been filed by the CBI. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 22.9.1989 has taken pains to take note of the facts and other relevant circumstances. The exact allegation is that the Petitioner and other co-accused persons after processing the inedible beef tallow in tins used to supply for its sale as edible vegetable oil under the fake name of Pupil brand vanaspati ghee/RBD Palm Oil. In support of the accusation, Narinder Kumar, Surinder Singh and Paras Ram were examined by the CBI. It has also come on the record that the Petitioner and Dawarka Dass Mittal had also allegedly destroyed the evidence to save themselves and thereby they are liable for trial under the provisions of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The argument made that there is a special Act, namely, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, regarding sale of adulterated food and thus, the accused persons could not be challaned under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, was also considered and rightly rejected after observing that in the instant case, the accused had sold 100 tins of inedible beef tallow as vegetable ghee besides the fact mentioning the report of the Analyst which is on the file that those 100 tins contain inedible beef tallow and no sort of vegetable oil and thus, the offence of cheating has been clearly made out. The learned Magistrate has also considered that quashing of the proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act does not absolve the accused of their liability of commission of offence of cheating under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. I was also taken to the report of the Public Analyst. The report is categorical in stating that the contents do not contain shisham oil at all against the minimum prescribed standard of 5%. The contents contain beef stuffs. I am impressed by the argument of Mr. Gupta that the beef tallow is not a food within the meaning of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and therefore, the question of admixture for the purpose of attracting the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act does not appeal to me at all. It is true that the case was started in 1983 and the investigation was handed over to the CBI in September, 1983. The echo of the case was also heard in our Parliament. The litigation was protracted on one ground or the other. It had remained pending in this Court for long about 15 years. Thus, for no fault of the prosecution, it should not be deprived to conduct the trial of the case though it should be done expeditiously.