# Santosh Sahgal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 443
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-06-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 9060 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-sahgal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48897
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Sections
482,
420,
467,468 & 471 - Copy Right Act, 1957Section 63-preparing fake pan masala and
using fake wrappers to be genuine branded
wrappers, there is no allegation of cheating
by personation in the First Information
Report-no case is made out against the
applicant u/s 419,272 IPC while in other
section no prayer is made regarding
quashing of entire proceedings though the
arguments were made. (Para 1 to 20)

B. A person is said to cheat by personation
if he cheats by pretending to be some
other person, or by knowingly substituting
one person for another, or representing
that he or any other person is a person
other than he or such other person really
is. (Para 14, 15)
The application is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Santosh Sahgal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
443
392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399,
400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 IPC, the
court can declare the person, who fails to
appear at the specified place and time
required
under
proclamation,
as
a
proclaimed offender and make declaration
to that effect.

21. In the present case, none of the
sections as mentioned in Section 82(4) are the
part of the FIR of which the applicant is
allegedly accused of, as such, the applicant,
prima facie cannot be declared as proclaimed
offender in exercise of powers under Section
82(4) of the Cr.P.C., thus on that count also, the
apprehension of the applicant is not justified.

22. In view of the reasonings recorded
above, the application is allowed and the order
dated 14.06.2022 is set aside.

23 . It is informed at the bar by the
Counsel for the applicant that the
passport of the applicant has already been
seized by the police authority, however,
in case the passport has not been seized
by the police authority, the applicant
shall surrender the passport before the
court concerned.

24. It is further clarified that investigating
authority shall be at liberty to carry out the
investigation in accordance with law in respect
of the offence in question and the applicant
shall also be at liberty to avail such remedy as
may be available to him under law.
----------
(2022)07ILR A443
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SADHNA RANI
(THAKUR), J.
Application U/S 482 No. 9060 of 2022

Santosh Sahgal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Utkarsh Malviya

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Sections
482,
420,
467,468 & 471 - Copy Right Act, 1957Section 63-preparing fake pan masala and
using fake wrappers to be genuine branded
wrappers, there is no allegation of cheating
by personation in the First Information
Report-no case is made out against the
applicant u/s 419,272 IPC while in other
section no prayer is made regarding
quashing of entire proceedings though the
arguments were made. (Para 1 to 20)

B. A person is said to cheat by personation
if he cheats by pretending to be some
other person, or by knowingly substituting
one person for another, or representing
that he or any other person is a person
other than he or such other person really
is. (Para 14, 15)
The application is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. M/s Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt.) Ltd & anr.
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2010) SCC OnLine All 1708

2. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
(2013) SCC OnLine All 13094

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani
(Thakur), J.)

1. Learned counsel for the applicant is
present. He has filed the amendment
application with affidavit. The same be
kept on the record.
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. As per facts of the case, an F.I.R.
was registered against the unknown persons
that they were manufacturing fake pan
masala and selling the same in half of the
rate of the original, which is resulting into
the loss of the State exchequer, hence an
action be taken against them. During
investigation, the police apprehended three
persons one from outside the unit and the
rest two from inside the unit manufacturing
the said fake pan masala with various
branded empty pouches and raw material
manufacturing pan masala etc. The present
accused is said to have apprehended from
out side the manufacturing place, sitting in
a car and from car also some incriminatory
material is said to have been found. Vide
order dated 27.10.2021 the coordinate
bench of this Court enlarged the accused on
bail in the same case under Sections
420,467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 63 of
Copy Right Act, 1957. Later on, Sections
272 and 419 I.P.C. are also said to have
been added. The trial court took cognizance
against all the accused persons including
the present one in the added sections 419
and 272 I.P.C. also. It appears from the
record that since the charge sheet was filed
in the court the present accused remained
absent and after summons, then bailable
warrants and at last, non bailable warrants
against the present accused vide order
dated 19.04.2022 were issued. The coaccused Amit Dixit is said to have been
bailed out in the added Sections 419 and
272 I.P.C. also vide order dated 04.03.2022
of this court.

3. By means of this application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. learned counsel for the
applicant seeks to invoke the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court by staying the
further proceedings in Case No. 117543 of
2021 pending before the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in relation to Case
Crime No. 799 of 2021 registered at Police
Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar under
Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 272 I.P.C.
and Section 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and
the prayer is also made not to arrest the
applicant during trial. In support of this
application an affidavit has been filed
wherein the prayer of quashing the entire
proceedings in relation to additional sections
272 and 419 I.P.C. in the same case is also
made.

4. Thus, it is clear that in his entire
application and affidavit the applicant has not
made any prayer to quash the proceedings
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and
Section 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957.

5. So far as Section 272 I.P.C. is
concerned, it is argued by the learned counsel
for the applicant that after coming into force
of the Food Safety and Standard Act,
Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. with regard to
adulteration cases have become redundant.
So the charge sheet, cognizance order of all
the proceedings under these sections against
the applicant are not maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has
drawn the attention of the court towards
Sections 5 of Cr.P.C., which is apposite to
mention here:-

"5. Saving. Nothing contained in
this Code shall, in the absence of a specific
provision to the contrary, affect any special or
local law for the time being in force, or any
special jurisdiction or power conferred, or
any special form of procedure prescribed, by
any other law for the time being in force."

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also drawn the attention of the court
towards the judgement of the Apex Court
in M/s Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt.)
7 All. Santosh Sahgal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
445
Limited and another Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2010 SCC OnLine All 1708
wherein it is observed that nothing in the
penal code shall affect the provisions of
any Special Act and when for any act or
omission in a particular subject, a special
set of rules have been framed, in that
situation the provisions of the I.P.C. have
to be ignored or over looked.

8. On the basis of this observation it is
argued that in the present case the charge
sheet has been filed under Section 272
I.P.C.
pursuant
to
the
impugned
government order, although adulteration of
food stuff is covered by Special Act i.e.
The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

9. The attention of the court is also
drawn towards Mahesh Kumar Agarwal
Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in
2013 SCC OnLine All 13094 wherein it was
found that as per judgement in M/s Pepsico
India Holdings (supra) the impugned G.O.
dated 11.05.2010 issued by the State
Government has been quashed so the first
information report registered under Section
272/273 I.P.C. was also quashed.

10. I have through the Apex Court
observation in M/s Pepsico India Holdings
(supra) wherein it has been clearly
observed that the PFA was enacted for the
prevention of adulteration of food being a
special Act it eclipsed sections 272 and 273
of I.P.C. In other words, the said Act made
sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. redundant as
punishment provided under the PFA Act
was much more stringent than what was
provided under Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C.
The Apex Court, however, observed in the
judgement that -

"In view of the aforesaid crystal
clear legal proposition and particular
provisions under the FSSA we are in
agreement with the arguments advanced by
the
petitioner's
Counsel
that
for
adulteration of good or misbranding, after
coming into force of the provisions of FSSA
vide notification dated 29th July, 2010, the
authorities can take action only under the
FSSA as it postulates an over riding effects
over all other food related laws including
the PFA Act. In view of the specific
provisions under the FSSA the offences
relating to adulteration of food that are
governed under the FSSA after July 29,
2010 are to be treated as per the
procedures to be followed for drawing and
analysis of samples as have been provided
for. The provisions of penalties and
prosecution have also been provided
therein. Therefore, before launching any
prosecution against an alleged offence of
food adulteration, it is necessary for the
concerned
authorities
to
follow
the
mandatory requirements as provided under
Sections 41 adn 42 of the FSSA and,
therefore, the police have no authority or
jurisdiction to investigate the matter under
FSSA. Section 42 empowers the Food
Safety Officer for inspection of food
business, drawing samples and sending
them to Food Analyst for analysis. The
Designated Officer, after scrutiny of the
report of Food Analyst shall decide as to
whether the contravention is punishable
with imprisonment or fine only and in the
case of contravention punishable with
imprisonment,
he
shall
send
his
recommendations to the Commissioner of
Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution.
Therefore, invoking Sections 272 and 273
of the Penal Code, 1860 in the matter
relating to adulteration of food pursuant to
the impugned government order is wholly
unjustified and non est. furthermore, it
appears that the impugned Government
Order has been issued without application
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of proper mind and examining the matter
minutely and thus the State Government
travelled beyond the jurisdiction.

In view of the aforesaid discussions,
the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned
G.O. dated 11.5.2010 issued by the State
Government contained in Annexure-1 to the
writ petition is hereby quashed."

11. In the case in hand there is dispute
regarding adulteration of pan masala, which is
an edible item. It is clear that the charge sheet
under Section 272 I.P.C. has been filed against
the above legal proposition. In the case of
adulteration regarding edible items it is the
designated
officer
who
is
entitled
to
investigate such matters under Food Safety
and Standards Act, 2006. Sections 41 and 42
of this Act provide power of search,
investigation, prosecution and procedure
thereof and the procedure of launching any
prosecution also.

12. Thus, in the light of above
judgements the charge sheet filed under
Section 272 I.P.C. against the applicant and
consequently the cognizance order and the
whole proceedings under Section 272 I.P.C.
are liable to be quashed.

13. So far as Section 419 I.P.C. is
concerned which is regarding punishment for
cheating by personation is reproduced as
under:-

"419. Punishment for cheating by
personation.?Whoever cheats by personation
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both."

14. Cheating by personation is
defined under Section 416 of I.P.C.. It is
apposite to reproduce this section also:-

"416. Cheating by personation.?A
person is said to "cheat by personation" if
he cheats by pretending to be some other
person, or by knowingly substituting one
person for another, or representing that he
or any other person is a person other than
he or such other person really is.

Explanation.?The
offence
is
committed
whether
the
individual
personated is a real or imaginary person.
Illustration"

15. As per this section a person can be
said to cheat some one by pretending
himself to be some other person or by
knowingly substituting one person for
another or representing that he or any other
person is a person other than he or such
other person really is.

16. As this a simple case of preparing
fake pan masala and using fake wrappers to
be genuine branded wrappers, there is no
allegation of cheating by personation in the
first information report. Thus, in my
opinion the case under Section 419 I.P.C.
can also be said to be not made out against
the applicant.

17.

Thus,
the
charge
sheet,
cognizance
order
and
the
whole
proceedings with regard to Sections 272
and 419 I.P.C. in the present case are liable
to be quashed. Consequently, the charge
sheet dated 29.08.2021 in Case Crime No.
799 of 2021 above and the cognizance
order dated 26.11.2021 and the entire
proceedings with respect to Sections 272
and 419 I.P.C. against the applicant -
Santosh Sahgal are quashed.

18. So far as the other sections are
concerned, though, the arguments were
made
regarding
quashing
of
the
7 All. Atmaram Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
447
proceedings under sections 420, 467, 468,
471 I.P.C. and Section 63 of Copy Right
Act, 1957 also but as no prayer regarding
quashing of charge sheet, cognizance order
or entire proceedings regarding these
sections is made by the applicant so there is
no need to discuss the allegations regarding
these sections.

19. So far as the prayer regarding
quashing of Non Bailable Warrants dated
19.04.2022 and 10.04.2022 against the
applicant are concerned, the jurisdiction of
recalling or cancelling the warrant rests
with the trial court. In this regard, the
prayer
of
the
applicant
is
rejected,
otherwise also in the rest Sections i.e. 420,
467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 63 Copy
Right Act, 1957 the applicant has been
bailed out by this Court vide order dated
27.10.2021.

20. As the present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being disposed of, so
the question of staying further proceedings
of the trial court in Case No. 117543 of
2021 above during pendency of the present
criminal application does not arise.

21. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is, thus, partly allowed.
----------
(2022)07ILR A447
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 11118 of 2022

Atmaram Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Vipul Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 323 & 504quashing of entire proceedings-When the
complaint is made in writing by a public
servant acting or purporting to act in the
discharge
of
his
official
duties,
the
Magistrate
need
not
examine
the
complainant and the witnesses before
proceeding with the matter and issuing
process-In a case where a report made by
a police officer is deemed to be a
complaint by virtue of the explanation to
Section 2(d) and the Magistrate proceeds
to take cognizance thereon u/s 190(1)(a),
treating it to be a complaint, and proceeds
to issue process without following the
procedure of examining the complainant
u/s 200 and the witnesses u/s 202 , the
issuance of process or summons cannot be
held to be vitiated-Moreso, there would be
no material change in the procedure of
trial and such the applicant cannot be said
to have been prejudiced by the order of
cognizance by the Magistrate, for this
reason also.(Para 1 to 57)

B. It is a cardinal principal of construction of
a statute that effort should be made in
construing the different provisions so that
each provision will have its play and in the
event
of
any
conflict
a
harmonious
construction should be given. The wellknown principle of harmonious construction
is that effect shall be given to all the
provisions and for that any provision of the
statute should be construed with reference
to the other provisions so as to make it
workable.(Para 50)

The application is rejected. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Mahendra Kumar Chaudhary & ors. Vs St. of
U.P. & anr.(2022) 118 ACC 212