RAKESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this revision petition is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the learned Magistrate should have ordered under S.322 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the case should be sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer or he should have returned the case under S.201 Cr. P.C. for being presented to a Magistrate having jurisdiction ?

(2.) One Mr. K.V.P. Nair, Health Inspector/Food Inspector, Western Railway, Navli Junction inspected the refreshment stall of M/s Anandilal Khatri at Navli Junction on Dec. 25, 1985. He took a sample of groundnut oil from the owner of the stall. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the Public Analyst (Public Health Laboratory) Udaipur, found that the sample was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution of the accused-petitioner under S.20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act hereinafter) from the local authority, Western Railway, Ajmer a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector Western Railway Navli against the accused-petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate Railways First Class Ajmer Camp Navli Junction for an offence under S.7/16 of the Act. An objection was raised before the Magistrate that by virtue of S.16A of the Act he had no jurisdiction to try the case and the learned Magistrate under the impugned order directed that the case be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer and the accused should put an appearance before that Court on April 11, 1985.

(3.) The contention of the learned Advocate for the accused-petitioner is that groundnut oil is an article of food within the meaning of S.3(v) of the Act and, therefore, the accused is said to have committed an offence punishable under S.7 read with S.16(1) of the Act. Such an offence by virtue of S.16A of the Act is to be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government. The Judicial Magistrate (Railways) was not such a Magistrate and, therefore, he could not have tried the accused for an offence under S.7/16(1) of the Act. According to learned counsel S.322 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will only apply in a case where the Magistrate has local or territorial jurisdiction in the first instance only after its taking cognizance of the offence, in the course of an inquiry into an offence or a trial from the evidence it appears to him to warrant a presumption that he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit for trial, or that the case is one which should be tried or committed for trial by some other Magistrate in the District or that the case should be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he shall stay the proceedings and submit the case with his report explaining its nature to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or such other Magistrate having jurisdiction as the Chief Judicial Magistrate directs. According to the learned counsel because the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction and the offence was exclusively triable by a Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government to try in a summary way, the proper course was that the Magistrate should have returned the case under S.201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Food Inspector for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction in the matter. In support of the submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a number of authorities. In Satyanarain v. The State, 1953 Raj LW 472 referring to S.201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it has been held that if the complaint is filed in the court of a Magistrate having no jurisdiction, then the only direction necessary to be made in the case is that the Magistrate should return the complaint for presentation to a proper court under S.201 Cr. P.C. In State v. Amritlal, AIR 1964 Guj 248 it has been held that where a First Class Magistrate trying a complaint after taking some evidence, finds that he has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case, he must have returned the complaint under S.201 Cr. P.C. and cannot proceed under S.346 Cr. P.C. It was further observed that under S.346 the Magistrate acts only when he takes cognizance of the offence and thereafter feels that the case is covered by any of the clauses and as such should be tried by some other Magistrate or should be committed to the Court of Session. Referring to S.346 Cr. P.C. 1898 which corresponds to S.322 of the Cr. P.C. 1973, it was held : -