Brijesh Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record.

This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

It is most humbly prayed that this Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Complaint Case No. 2715 of 2010 State of U.P. through P.N. Singh, Chief Food Inspector, Office of Food and Medicine, Administration Collectorate, District Shrawasti v. Brijesh Kumar Gupta u/s 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, relating to Police Station Koitwali Bhinga, District Shrawasti and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate along with summoning order dated 18.8.2010 as well as F.I.R. under Crime NO. 1368 of 2010, u/s 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and 272, 273 IPC relating to P.S. Kotwali Bhinga, District Shrawasti in the interest of justice.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the prayer for quashing the First Information Report registered at Crime No. 1368 of 2010, under Sections 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and 272, 273 IPC relating to P.S. Kotwali Bhinga, District Shrawasti. The impugned prayer is, therefore, refused as not pressed.

The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Opposite Party No. 2-Sri P.N. Singh, Chief Food Inspector on the same facts has filed a complaint u/s 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 against the accused. He has lodged the First Information too under Sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, 272/273 IPC against the accused. The accused cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence. The case under Sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, 272/273 IPC is under investigation, therefore, the complaint case as well as the impugned summoning order dated 18.8.2010 are liable to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition.

Considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

I have gone through the impugned summoning order. The learned Magistrate, prima facie, found evidence in support of offence u/s 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 consequently he has summoned the accused which in my opinion does not suffer from any illegality and the same cannot be quashed. The complaint u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is not barred under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The offences under Sections 272/273 IPC though on the same facts can be investigated independently.

The petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case the accused appears before the court below and moves any application for bail, the same will be heard and disposed of by the court below expeditiously, preferably on the same day.