Quashing application filed against FIR for offences under IPC and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Court applied precedent to hold police had no jurisdiction over special offence and quashed the FIR.
FIR of Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 393 of 2010 is hereby quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ No.70 of 2011
All resident of Mohalla-Gulabag, P.S.-Purnea Sadar, District-Purnea. .... .... Petitioners Versus
.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Advocate Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Namrata Mishra (G.P.-17) Mr. Chhotelal Mishra (A.C. to G.P.-17) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-08-2013
Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners during the course of the day enclosing the copy of enquiry report.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
parties.
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.70 of 2011 dt.08-08-2013 2/3
3. This is an application seeking quashing of Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 393 of 2010 registered for the offence under Sections 420, 468, 471, 307 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that on basis of some taking of samples and seizure already eleven cases are going on against the petitioners at the instance of competent authority, wherein, cognizance has already been taken without awaiting for report of analyst, this immature First Information Report was lodged before the police, who is not at all competent to entertain such cases and proceed.
5. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in a case of “Satish Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.” reported in “2007(2) PLJR 724” , wherein, it is held in paragraph nos.- 6 & 7 as such:-
“6. Having heard counsel for the parties, in my view, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is a complete Code in itself with regard to manufacture, sale of food articles and contravention in respect thereof. It has its own set of authorities, which are authorised to conduct investigation, search, seizure and/or launch prosecution in respect thereof including enquiry into the matter. Same is the provision of Drugs and Cosmetic Act. Both are special statutes making out special offence
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.70 of 2011 dt.08-08-2013 3/3
and providing for its enquiry and prosecution. ” “7. In that view of the matter, in view of the provision of Section 4(2) Cr.P.C. the procedure as prescribed in these special statute will have to be followed in derogation to the procedure, as prescribed under Cr.P.C. Special authorities have been conferred on special officers under the two Acts, which authorities are not on the police officer. The action of the police is wholly without jurisdiction, in all aspect of the matter. Merely by writing Section 420 and other Sections of IPC the police cannot make out an offence where there is none, if fact, in terms of those sections and intendment to cheat and intendment to commit criminal breach of trust is not enough to be an offence under IPC and preparation to commit, an attempt to make offence is not punishable under IPC. ”
6. The ratio decided in the aforesaid case is equally applicable in the instant case. Hence, the First Information Report of Purnea Sadar P.S. Case No. 393 of 2010 is hereby quashed. Further, it is made clear that this decision will have no bearing upon remaining eleven cases pending against the petitioners before the competent authority. With the above observation, this writ application stands disposed of.
(Akhilesh Chandra, J)
Praveen-II/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered under IPC and PFA Act should be quashed as the police lacked jurisdiction over a special offence.
Whether the police action in registering the case is wholly without jurisdiction in light of the special statute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Mishra Vs. State of BiharApplied¶23
Satish Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2007(2) PLJR 724
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Raghubir Prasad Agarwal and others
The State of Bihar and others
Akhilesh Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
