State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Shaileshbhai Mansukhlal Shah and anr. - Court Judgment |
| Criminal |
| Supreme Court of India |
| May-30-2007 |
| Criminal Appeal Nos. 38 and 39 of 2001 |
| R.V. Raveendran and; Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ. |
| 105(2008)CLT227(SC); JT2007(9)SC102; RLW2007(4)SC3100; 2007(9)SCALE56; (2007)7SCC71 |
| Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 4, 4(2), 7, 11, 11(1), 13(1), 13(2), 13(2A), 13(2B), 13(3), 14A and 16; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 363; Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 4(2) and 4(6); Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976 |
| State of Gujarat and anr.;state of Gujarat |
| Shaileshbhai Mansukhlal Shah and anr.;rameshbhai Thobhanbhai |
| Hemantika Wahi and; Shivangi, Advs |
| Appeal allowed |
| From the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.1999 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. 803 of 1998 |
.....aaifr only in terms of order of high court in company matter matter remitted to bifr so as to enable it to proceed in accordance with provisions of act, afresh--sections 26 & 32; [s.b. sinha, lokeshwar singh panta & markandey katju, jj] scope held, sick industrial companies (special provisions) act (sica) is a special statute. it is a self contained code. the jurisdiction of the company judge in a case where reference had been made to bifr would be subject to the provisions of sica. sica furthermore was enacted to secure the principles specified in article 39 of the constitution of india. it seeks to give effect to the larger public interest. it should be given primacy because of its higher public purpose. section 26 of sica bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts. what scheme should be prepared by the operating agency for revival and rehabilitation of the sick industrial company is within the domain of bifr. section 26 not only covers orders passed under sica but also any matter which bifr is empowered to determine. the jurisdiction of civil court is, thus, barred in respect of any matter for which the appellate authority or the board is empowered. the high court may not be a.....order1. the issue involved in this appeal has been considered by us in crl. appeal no. 38/2001. the addl. chief judicial magistrate, gundal, following the decision of the gujarat high court in special crl. appeal no. 803/1998 (which is the subject matter of crl. a. no. 38/2001 decided today), has directed the complainant (food inspector/state) by order dated 30.12.1997 to pay the fee for second analysis of the sample under section 13(2) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 ('act' for short). the said order was confirmed by the high court by order dated 9.5.2000 in crl. revision no. 21/2000.2. following the decision rendered by us today in crl. appeal no. 38/2001, this appeal is allowed and the order of the high court and the learned magistrate directing the complainant to pay the fee are set aside, and it is declared that the accused-respondent is liable to pay the fee for the second analysis under section 13(2) of the act.
ORDER
1. The issue involved in this appeal has been considered by us in Crl. Appeal No. 38/2001. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gundal, following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Special Crl. Appeal No. 803/1998 (which is the subject matter of Crl. A. No. 38/2001 decided today), has directed the complainant (Food Inspector/State) by order dated 30.12.1997 to pay the fee for second analysis of the sample under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('Act' for short). The said order was confirmed by the High Court by order dated 9.5.2000 in Crl. Revision No. 21/2000.
2. Following the decision rendered by us today in Crl. Appeal No. 38/2001, this appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court and the learned Magistrate directing the complainant to pay the fee are set aside, and it is declared that the accused-respondent is liable to pay the fee for the second analysis under section 13(2) of the Act.