Full Judgment Text
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.297 OF 2021
(@ SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.5042 OF 2018)
HARI SHANKAR AGGARWAL APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. Manish
Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of
Rajasthan. This appeal has been filed against the judgment
and order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan, by which the Criminal
Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1664/2018 filed by the appellant
has been dismissed.
3. Brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JAGDISH KUMAR
Date: 2021.03.15
17:47:23 IST
Reason:
a complaint was filed by the Medical and Health Department,
(Rajasthan) for offence under Section 7/16, Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on the basis of inspection made
2
on 02.03.2002 on Oswal Traders Shop . In a complaint, it was
averred that on information received from Commercial Tax
Department, Jaipur, the nominee of firm is Hari Shankar
Aggarwal S/o Shri Vasudev Prasad Agarwal , therefore he has
been made a party. In paragraph 11, it was further stated
that according to information received from the Local Health
Officer, Mathura the Director of M/s Bhola Baba Milk Food
Industry is Devendra Singh Bhadauria , who was also
impleaded as one of the party. The Judicial Magistrate,
Jhalwar, Rajasthan, took cognizance of the offence and
issued summon by order dated 04.08.2003. Against the order
dated 04.08.2003, the appellant- Hari Shankar Aggarwal filed
criminal case No.17 of 2017, challenging the order of the
Trial Court dated 04.08.2003.
4. The case of the appellant is that he was not a nominee
of the firm and one Devendra Singh Bhadauria was declared as
nominee. The information regarding his nomination had
already been submitted to the Chief Medical Officer,
Mathura, which was received on 21.10.1995 and there being no
allegation against the appellant, no cognizance of the
offence could have taken against the appellant. The petition
was dismissed by the Special Judge on 16.02.2018 against
which the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was filed in the
High Court, which has been rejected by the impugned judgment
of the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellant
relying on Annexure P-2, which is an information in Form
3
VIII submitted to the Chief Medical Officer on 21.10.1995,
submits that form nominating Devendra Singh Bhadauria , was
sent by letter dated 21.02.1995 which was duly received by
Chief Medical Officer on 21.10.1995. Hence, the complaint
against the appellant alleging himself to be nominee ought
not to have been taken cognizance. It is submitted that a
copy of letter dated 21.02.1995 duly received by the Cheif
Medical Officer on 21.10.1995 has been filed before the
Courts below and the said document clearly proved that
nominee was Devendra Singh Bhadauria and cognizance could
have been taken against Devendra Singh Bhadauria and
therefore the Courts below erred in dismissing the claim of
the appellant.
5. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing
for the State submits that the document (Annexure P-2) dated
21.02.1995 claimed to be served on 21.10.1995, has not been
believed by the Courts below. He has referred to the reasons
given in the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Special
Judge, (NDPS) Jhalwar, Rajasthan. He submits that there are
reasons given by the Special Judge for not accepting the
document. Hence, the claim of the appellant has rightly been
rejected.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before we
4
proceed and examine the respective contention of the
parties, we need to reproduce paragraphs 10 and 11 of the
complaint which are to the following effect:-
“10. That the Krishna Brand Ghee procured by M/s
Falaudi Trading Co. from Bhole Baba Milk Food Industry
181 Sindhi Colony Whose Bill No.3074 dated 05/03/2002
was produced from which it is clear that M/s Falaudi
Trading Co. has procured Ghee from the said firm. From
the information received from Commercial Tax
Department, Jaipur the nominee of the said firm is
Sh. Hari Shankar Aggarwal S/o Vasudev Aggarwal,
therefore, he has also been made a party.
11. That the boxes were labeled as Bhole Baba Milk
Food Industry, Agra and the said firm was given
several letters even then, no information regarding
the firm was rejected. According to information
received from local health officer, Mathura the
director of Bhole Baba Milk Food Industry Namely
Devendra Singh Bhadauria S/o Ram Sewak Singh Badoria
R/o Hanuman Nagar, Fatehabad, District Agra, has been
made a party.”
7. As per Section 17 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954,
the notice under Section 17(2) is contemplated by company
to Local Health Authority in such form and in such manner
as has been prescribed that it has nominated such Director
or Manager as a person who is responsible along with
written consent of such Director. When we look into
paragraph 10 of the complaint, it is clearly mentioned that
from the information received from the Commercial Tax
Department, Jaipur, the nominee is Hari Shankar Aggarwal.
Whereas in paragraph 11 of the complaint, it is mentioned
that according to information from Local Health Officer,
5
Mathura, the Director is Devendra Singh Bhadauria. For the
purposes of Section 17, the nomination has to be given to
the Local Health Authority, according to the complaint
itself, on the basis of the information received from Local
Health Officer, it is Devendra Singh Bhadauria. The above
statement in the complaint itself proves the case of the
appellant that information of the nomination of the
Devendra Singh Bhadauria was submitted by letter dated
21.02.1995 which was received on 21.10.1995.
8. Now, coming to the reasons relied by Dr. Manish
Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the State that the
document is dated 21.02.1995, whereas M/s Bhole Baba Milk
Food industry was incorporated and its resolution was filed
on 06.03.1995. Hence, the burden of proof, regarding the
date on which nominee was made, lies on the appellant. The
above observation of the Special Judge in no manner negate
the submission of the nomination form which was received by
the Chief Medical Officer, Mathura on 21.10.1995. The
information was received only after incorporation of the
company and after the resolution referred on 06.03.1995.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel, also submits
that the nomination form was issued in the letter head of
the company which ought not to have been sent.
6
9. We have perused the nomination form at page 18 of the
paper book which clearly mentions Form VIII (Rule 12-B).
10. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the
respondent that it could not have been sent on the letter
head does not appeal to us. When the nomination was in Form
VIII and duly sent and received, it cannot be rejected on
the ground that it was sent on the letter head of the
company. As observed above, the averments in the complaint
itself clearly indicate that it was the name of Devendra
Singh Bhadauria which was with the Local Health Authority,
hence it was he who was responsible for the affairs of the
company and reference of Hari Shankar Aggarwal whose name
was informed by the Commercial Tax Department, has no
relevance.
11. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the view
that the High Court as well as the learned Special Judge
erred in rejecting the case of the appellant. It is further
to be noticed that there are no specific allegations
against the present appellant in the complaint apart from
that he was being impleaded as a nominee. We thus, are of
the view that no cognizance could have been taken against
the appellant for the offence under Section 7/16 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Courts
below committed error in taking cognizance.
7
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order
taking cognizance as well as the orders passed by the
Courts below are set aside.
…………………………………………J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
…………………………………………J.
[S. ABDUL NAZEER]
…………………………………………J.
[HEMANT GUPTA]
New Delhi
th
10 March, 2021
8
ITEM NO.6 Court 7 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 297/2021
HARI SHANKAR AGGARWAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 32525/2021 - EX-PARTE STAY
IA No. 32527/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 82748/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 10-03-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Ajay Jain, Adv.
Mr. Jinendra Jain, AOR
Ms. Mitika, Adv.
Ms. Tannu Vats, Adv.
Ms. Cherry Aggarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed, in terms of the Reportable signed
order.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(JAGDISH KUMAR) (RENU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Reportable signed order is placed on the file )