Allahabad HC Quashes Charges Against 3 Over Alleged Gutkha Unit, Says Mouldy Tobacco-Supari Sample Didn’t Establish Adulteration Or Poison

An FIR alleged that police recovered from Revisionist No. 1’s premises machinery and materials used to manufacture gutkha, pan masala and tobacco-mixed betel nut; Revisionists Nos. 2 and 3 were alleged to be partners or involved in packing and supply

After investigation, the trial court framed charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 and 120-B IPC. The revisionists challenged the order, contending that the allegations and evidence did not disclose the ingredients of those offences

A laboratory report recorded tobacco, visible mould and fungus in a sample and concluded that it was unsafe and unfit for human consumption; the Food Safety authority also reported that the recovered products were misbranded and unsafe

Section 415 IPC defines cheating; Section 420 IPC punishes cheating that dishonestly induces delivery of property or another specified act

Section 467 IPC applies where forgery of the specified kind has been committed, while Sections 468 and 471 concern forgery for cheating and use of a forged document, respectively

Section 272 IPC, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, requires adulteration of food or drink so as to make it noxious, with the intention or knowledge that it will be sold as food or drink; Section 273 IPC concerns selling, offering or exposing for sale food or drink that is noxious or unfit for consumption, with the requisite knowledge or reason to believe

The Court also cited Bharamappa Gogi v. Praveen Murthy, (2016) 6 SCC 268, for the principle that framing a charge informs the accused of the incriminating case to be met and enables preparation of a defence

The Court held that recovery of materials used in manufacturing the products did not show that anyone had been deceived or dishonestly induced to deliver property, as required for cheating

The presence of wrapper rolls did not establish that the names “Pandit Supari” or “Kuber” belonged to another person or that any forgery had been committed; an intention to forge, without an alleged completed forgery, was insufficient to support the forgery-related charges

Although the laboratory report found tobacco and visible mould and fungus and classified the sample as unsafe, it did not record adulteration or the presence of a poisonous substance. The Court therefore held that the report and the other material did not establish the necessary ingredients of Sections 272 or 273 IPC; the finding that food was unsafe, by itself, did not make out those offences on the material before the Court

It concluded that the trial court had framed the charges mechanically, without considering the essential ingredients of each offence

It also set aside the criminal proceedings instituted by the trial court upon taking cognizance