Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PURSHOTAM DASS JHUNJUNWALA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/12/1982
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION:
1983 AIR 158 1983 SCR (1) 895
1983 SCC (1) 9 1982 SCALE (2)1118
CITATOR INFO :
R 1989 SC 1 (6)
R 1990 SC 494 (4)
RF 1991 SC1260 (43)
RF 1992 SC 604 (100)
ACT:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-S. 482 - Complaint
containing clear allegations - High Court not justified in
quashing proceedings against accused.
HEADNOTE:
The facts of this case were almost identical with that
of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and
Ors. (the case reported immediately before this one).
However Paragraph 5 of the complaint filed in this case was
in the following terms:
"That accused Ram Kishan Bajal is the Chairman,
accused R.P. Neyatiya is the Managing Director and
accused Nos. 7 to 12 are the Directors of the Hindustan
Sugar Mills Ltd. and were incharge of and responsible
to it for the conduct of its business at the time of
commission of offence."
Adopting a line of reasoning similar to the one adopted
by it in the earlier case, the High Court had quashed the
proceeding against the accused (respondents here).
After pointing out that the law on the subject had been
dealt with in the earlier case and allowing the appeal,
^
HELD: In this case a clear averment has been made in
Para 5 of the complaint regarding the active role played by
the respondents and the extent of their liability and a
prima facie case for summoning the accused has been made
out. It cannot therefore be said that Paragraph 5 of the
complaint is vague and does not implicate the respondents.
As to what would be the evidence against the respondents is
not a matter to be considered at this stage and would have
to be proved at the trial. The High Court went wrong in
holding that tho allegations made Paragraph 5 were vague.
[891 B-D]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
749 Of 1980.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated the 5th March, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in
Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 501 of 1974.
B.P. Maheshwari for the Appellant.
896
V.S. Desai and Arvind Minocha for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed
against a judgment dated 5.3.1980 of the Delhi High Court by
which the High Court quashed the proceedings taken by the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi against respondent Nos. I to
11. This is a case where the facts are almost identical with
the facts of Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1980 which we have
decided today, with a vital difference which we shall point
out hereafter.
In this case also, Shri M.M. Gupta, Food Inspector in
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi purchased a sample of
milk toffees from shop of Jagdish Chander Mehta situate at
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The milk toffees which were
purchased by the food inspector were found to be adulterated
by the Public Analyst. The toffees in this case were
manufactured by Hindustan Sugar Mills, Sl, Mahatma Gandhi
Road, Bombay. A complaint was filed before the Metropolitan
Magistrate against accused Nos. I to 12 under sections
7116117 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
mentioning the facts stated above.
The High Court was of the view that the complaint did
not disclose any offence and adopting a similar line of
reasoning, as in criminal appeal No. 701 of 1980, quashed
the proceedings against respondent Nos. I to 11. We have
already dealt with the law on the subject in our decision in
criminal appeal No. 701 of 1980, a copy of which is placed
on the file of this case The relevant allegations against
the accused-respondents are to be found in para S of the
complaint which may be extracted thus:
"5, That accused Ram Kishan Bajaj is the Chairman,
accused R.P. Neyatia is the Managing Director and
accused Nos. 7 to 12 are the Directors of the Hindustan
Sugar Mills Ltd. and were incharge of and responsible
to it for the con duct of its business at the time of
commission of offence."
Unlike the other case, para S of the complaint of this
case gives complete details of the role played by the
respondents and the extent of their liability. It is clearly
mentioned that Ram Kishan Bajaj is the Chairman and R.P.
Neyatia is the Managing Director and respondents 7 to 11 are
the Directors of the Mill and were incharge of
897
and responsible for the conduct of its business at the time
of the commission of the offence whereas in the other case
the complaint has merely drawn a presumption without any
averment.
In the instant case, a clear averment has been made
regarding the active role played by the respondents and the
extent of their 1 liability. In this view of the matter, it
cannot be said that para 5 of the complaint is vague and
does not implicate respondents I to 11. As to what would be
the evidence against the respondents is not a matter to be
considered at this stage and would have to be proved at the
trial. We have already held that for the purpose of quashing
the proceedings only the allegations set forth in the
complaint have to be seen and nothing further.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
From a perusal of the various clauses of the complaint,
including para 5, it is quite clear that a prima facie case
for summoning the accused has been made out and the High
Court was absolutely wrong in holding that the allegations
made in para S are vague. The High Court failed to consider
that the allegations were quite clear and explicit so as to
be sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence against
the accused.
Further details would have to be given in the shape of
evidence when the trial proceeds and in view of the clear
allegations made in para 5 of the complaint, we are not in a
position to agree with the High Court that it is a fit case
in which it should have exercised its discretion under s.
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in order to
quash the proceedings against the accused-respondents.
For these reasons, therefore, we allow this appeal, set
aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the
Metropolitan Magistrate as a result of which all the accused
will now be summoned and placed for trial in accordance with
law.
H.L.C. Appeal allowed.
898