Kailash Chand Gupta Vs. State

Kailash Chand Gupta vs State

Disposition Petition accepted Court Delhi Decided Jan 25, 2005

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/687027

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/687027
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Manju Goel, J.
Decided On: Jan 25, 2005
Case Number: Crl. Revision Petition No. 632/2004
Subject: Criminal;Food Adulteration
Disposition: Petition accepted

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 273 and 328 -- Prosecution for selling adulterated mustard oil -- The tin from which sample was taken not described in the seizure memo -- Held that the link of the sale of adulterated/poisonous mustard oil and the petitioner is missing -- No material to show that petitioner had kno...

Key legal issue: Criminal;Food Adulteration
Outcome / disposition: Petition accepted
Acts & sections: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Sections 7, 13, 16 and 20; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 272, 273 and 328

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kailash Chand Gupta

Advocate R.N. Mittal,; Puneet Mittal and; Pawan Kumar, Advs

Respondent

State

Advocate Richa Kapoor, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Sections 7, 13, 16 and 20; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 272, 273 and 328
Reported In: 2005CriLJ2846; 118(2005)DLT60; 2005(80)DRJ484

Excerpt

indian penal code, 1860 - section 273 and 328 -- prosecution for selling adulterated mustard oil -- the tin from which sample was taken not described in the seizure memo -- held that the link of the sale of adulterated/poisonous mustard oil and the petitioner is missing -- no material to show that petitioner had knowledge or reason to believe that the commodity was noxious -- petitioner acquitted from both the charges. - - 1. this revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.10.2004 of the additional sessions judge directing framing of charge against the petitioner as well as against the other co-accused under sections 328 and 273 of the indian penal code (in short `ipc'). the facts of the case can be enumerated as under: ram lalit and petitioner-kailash chand along with gauri shankar, who was the manufacturer of the mustered oil, were challaned for offences under sections 272/273/328 ipc as well as for offences under sections 7/16 of the prevention of food adulteration act (in short `pfa act') all the three were charged under sections 273 as well as under section 328 of the ipc......is directed against the order dated 1.10.2004 of the additional sessions judge directing framing of charge against the petitioner as well as against the other co-accused under sections 328 and 273 of the indian penal code (in short `ipc'). the facts of the case can be enumerated as under:following a complaint of sale of adulterated mustered oil a raid was conducted in the premises of ram lalit and 50 gms. of oil from an open tin of mustered oil was seized. on ram lalit's disclosure that the mustered oil had been purchased from the petitioner, kailash chand gupta, the raiding party went to his premises and recovered two iron tins of mustered oil. ram lalit and petitioner-kailash chand along with gauri shankar, who was the manufacturer of the mustered oil, were challaned for offences under sections 272/273/328 ipc as well as for offences under sections 7/16 of the prevention of food adulteration act (in short `pfa act') all the three were charged under sections 273 as well as under section 328 of the ipc. the charge under section 7/16 of the pfa act was dropped because of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of section 13 and 20 of the pfa act. it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no evidence to link the petitioner with the offence under sections 273 & 328 ipc and, thereforee, he be discharged.2. the seizure memo in respect of the recovery of mustered oil from ram lalit dated 12.2.1999 shows that the tin from which the sample of mustered oil was taken has not been described at all. all that it says was that the tin was open and it contained half a tin of mustered oil. there is no mention if the tin had any marking of the manufacturer or of the seller. as against this the tin recovered from the premises of the petitioner bears a label of ' nandi brand mustered oil kachhi ghani 15 kg. filtered crushed by kolooh. manufactured by haryana oil industries, bhiwani road, rohtak.' and further a sticker carrying the words ' representative sample.....

Full Judgment

Manju Goel, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.10.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge directing framing of charge against the petitioner as well as against the other co-accused under Sections 328 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC'). The facts of the case can be enumerated as under:

Following a complaint of sale of adulterated mustered oil a raid was conducted in the premises of Ram Lalit and 50 gms. of oil from an open tin of mustered oil was seized. On Ram Lalit's disclosure that the mustered oil had been purchased from the petitioner, Kailash Chand Gupta, the raiding party went to his premises and recovered two iron tins of mustered oil. Ram Lalit and petitioner-Kailash Chand along with Gauri Shankar, who was the manufacturer of the mustered oil, were challaned for offences under Sections 272/273/328 IPC as well as for offences under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short `PFA Act') all the three were charged under Sections 273 as well as under Section 328 of the IPC. The charge under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act was dropped because of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13 and 20 of the PFA Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no evidence to link the petitioner with the offence under Sections 273 & 328 IPC and, thereforee, he be discharged.

2. The seizure memo in respect of the recovery of mustered oil from Ram Lalit dated 12.2.1999 shows that the tin from which the sample of mustered oil was taken has not been described at all. All that it says was that the tin was open and it contained half a tin of mustered oil. There is no mention if the tin had any marking of the manufacturer or of the seller. As against this the tin recovered from the premises of the petitioner bears a label of ' Nandi Brand Mustered Oil Kachhi Ghani 15 kg. filtered crushed by kolooh. Manufactured by Haryana Oil Industries, Bhiwani Road, Rohtak.' and further a sticker carrying the words ' Representative sample tested in competent laboratory and certified unadulterated' were fixed. Further on the cap of the tin the words 'Nandi Brand double filtered 100% pure mustered oil Haryana Oil Industries, Rohtak - 124051' were printed. No bill of any kind showing sale of mustered oil by the petitioner to co-accused Ram Lalit has been recovered by the investigation.

3. It appears, thereforee, that the only link between the petitioner, Kailash Chand Gupta, and the offence of sale of adulterated mustered oil which was poisonous, is the statement of co-accused, Ram Lalit. The investigation has not procured any evidence to show that the contents of the tin recovered from Ram Lalit could not have been supplied to him by anyone other than the petitioner. The label, sticker and the print on the tin recovered from the petitioner showed that the manufacturer of the oil was Haryana Oil Industries. thereforee, the oil recovered from Ram Lalit could have been supplied to him by any manufacturer of oil and even if it was the same oil which was produced by Haryana Oil Industries the same could have been supplied to him directly by Haryana Oil Industries or by any other middle-man. Thus the very foundation of the charge against the petitioner, namely, the link of the sale of adulterated/poisonous mustered oil and the petitioner is missing. Thus the petitioner cannot be charged for the offence under Section 328 IPC.

4. The second question is whether the petitioner can be charged for the offence under Section 273 IPC. Section 273 IPC reads as under:

' 273. Sale of noxious food or drink- Whoever sells, or offers or expose for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.'

5. Now the necessary ingredients of Section 273 IPC is that the offender should know or should have reason to believe the commodity to be noxious. In the present case, there is no such evidence or even a presumption. The labels etc. on the tins recovered show that whoever would purchase would have reason to believe that the mustered oil was of 100% purity and that the purity has been tested and certified by a competent laboratory. Both the tins found at the premises of the petitioner were sealed suggesting that the petitioner had not handled the contents of the tins after having received it from the manufacturer. Hence the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 273 IPC of knowledge or of reason to believe that the commodity was noxious is absent in the present case. In this situation, the petitioner cannot be charged either for the offence under Section 273 IPC or for the offence under Section 328 IPC.

6. The revision petition is accepted and the petitioner is discharged.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2005 Same Parties Kailash Chand Gupta vs State Same Subject Criminal;Food Adulteration Same Judge Manju Goel, J. Acts & Sections Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Sections 7, 13, 16 and ...

Criminal;Food Adulteration