Naresh Kumar vs State of Haryana

Ajay Tewari, J.—This revision has been filed against the order dated 16.08.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Narwana, whereby he has framed charge under Sections 272, 273 and 420 IPC against the petitioner. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that on

11.07.2009 Inspector Sajjan Singh along with other police officials was patrolling at Hariyal Chowk, Narwana where he received a secret

information that accused-petitioner had taken a godown on rent where he had stored Desi Ghee (pure ghee) and after adulterating the same sold it

to the public by deceiving them that it was pure. Had a raid been conducted, huge quantity of adulterated ghee could be recovered from his

godown. On the basis of this secret information a case was registered against the accused u/s 420 IPC. After completion of investigation and other

formalities, challan was presented against the accused-petitioner.

Accused-petitioner was charged under Sections 272, 273 and 420 IPC against which he has come in revision before this Court, as mentioned

above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the charge against the petitioner has been wrongly framed and the order framing charge

should be set aside. He has further argued that the case against the accused was registered on the basis of secret information and that for such type

of offences there is a separate Act i.e. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). These types of leases

of adulteration do not come within the purview of Indian Penal Code. Section 20 of the Act describes that only Magistrate can take cognizance in

such like cases and that too only on the written consent of the State or the Central Government or a person authorised in this behalf and none other

but no such procedure has been followed in this case. There is nothing on record to show that police was in any way authorised to take cognizance

in this matter. In support of his contention he has also relied upon Shiv Kumar v. State of Punjab, reported as 2009 (1) FAC 238. In that case also

a secret informer had informed that adulterated Paneer was being sold which could spread dangerous diseases. In the cited case this Court has

quashed the FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned DAG has not been able to show any law contrary to the one cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances in view of

the aforesaid citation, this petition is allowed and the order dated 16.08.2010 framing charge against the petitioner, is set aside.