Dismissed

Anil Mehta v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC20 Feb 2017CRLMP/2497/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by Anil Mehta challenging the dismissal of revision petitions and orders taking cognizance under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The court refused to interfere, noting the petitioner had not raised the specific argument about lacking a Central Laboratory opportunity before lower courts.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous petitions and stay petitions were dismissed.

Anil Mehta Vs State and Anr. — Consumer Protection | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

(1) S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. (PET.) NO. 2492 / 2015

¶3

Anil Mehta S/o Shri Babulal Mehta, By caste Jain, R/o Kalyanpura, Barmer, District Barmer and Proprietor M/s. Mukesh Bohra & Compnay, Karmooji Ki Gali, Dhani Bazar, Barmer, District Barmer.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan

¶7

Bhura Ram S/o Sukh Ram Jat, By caste Jat, R/o Baytu Bhopji, P.S. Barmer, at present Food Inspector, Office of C.M.&H.O., Barmer, District Barmer.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

(2) S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. (PET.) NO. 2497 / 2015

¶10

Anil Mehta S/o Shri Babulal Mehta, By caste Jain, R/o Kalyanpura, Barmer, District Barmer and Proprietor M/s. Mukesh Bohra & Compnay, Karmooji Ki Gali, Dhani Bazar, Barmer, District Barmer.

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of Rajasthan

¶14

Bhura Ram S/o Sukh Ram Jat, By caste Jat, R/o Baytu Bhopji, P.S. Barmer, at present Food Inspector, Office of C.M.&H.O., Barmer, District Barmer.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kumar Sharma Mr. Rahul Sharma

¶17

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit - PP

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶19

Judgment / Order

¶20

20/02/2017

¶21

As the controversy involved in these criminal misc. petitions is common, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

¶22

(2 of 4)

¶23

[CRLMP-2492/2015]

¶24

The defects pointed out by the Registry are minor in nature, therefore, the same are waived.

¶25

These criminal misc. petitions have been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 11.05.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the revisional court’) in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.35/2015(51/13) and 41/2015 (52/13) respectively, whereby the revisional court has dismissed the aforesaid revision petitions along with 14 other revision petitions. The aforesaid criminal revision petitions were preferred by the petitioner against the orders dated 11.02.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Complaint Nos.127/2008 and 125/2008 respectively, whereby it has dismissed the applications preferred by the petitioner under Section 468 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the orders dated 10.03.2008 of taking cognizance against the petitioner in various criminal complaints for the offence punishable under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1954’).

¶26

From the copies of complaints annexed by the petitioner in these criminal misc. petitions, it is clear that on 01.11.2006, the Food Inspector collected the samples of ghee from the shop of the petitioner, who is in business of trading of ghee. The said samples of ghee were sent to the Chemical Analyst for chemical examination and the same were failed and therefore, the Food Inspector filed complaints against the petitioner for the offence

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

[CRLMP-2492/2015]

¶29

punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954.

¶30

The limitation for taking cognizance for the aforesaid offence is three years and the complaints against the petitioner were filed on 10.03.2008.

¶31

From the above, it is clear that the complaints against the petitioner for the commission of offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 were filed within three years and the trial court has also taken cognizance against the petitioner for commission of aforesaid offence on the complaints filed by the Food Inspector on 10.03.2008, which is also within a period of three years.

¶32

It appears that the said fact has not been noticed by the trial court as well as the revisional court and the applications preferred by the petitioner with a prayer for setting aside the orders of taking cognizance on the ground of limitation have been decided along with several other applications filed in different complaints.

¶33

Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as provided under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954, the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to get the samples of ghee tested by the Central Laboratory and therefore, the orders of taking cognizance passed by the trial court in the complaints filed against the petitioner are bad in the eye of law.

¶34

I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, it is noticed that no such argument was raised by the petitioner either before the trial court or before the revisional court. Even in these criminal misc. petitions, no such ground has been taken by the petitioner.

¶35

(4 of 4)

¶36

[CRLMP-2492/2015]

¶37

In such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in these criminal misc. petitions while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶38

Hence, these criminal misc. petitions are dismissed.

¶39

Stay petitions also stand dismissed.

¶40

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶41

Abhishek Kumar S.Nos.9 & 10

Anil Mehta v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Mehta v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonma Ram and Ors. Vs the District Collector, Barmer and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs State

Om Prakash and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Daulat Ram Vs State and Anr.

Karan Singh Rathore Vs State

Sukhdev Singh and Anr. Vs State