# STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. • v. RAMESHCHANDRA SHIVRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC

- **Citation:** [2009] 7 S.C.R. 134
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-04-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 1457-1463 of 2004
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-gujarat-and-anr-v-rameshchandra-shivratan-kosar-and-anr-etc-25894
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

~
•
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Parameters
c
for exercise of jurisdiction under s. 482 - Discussed -
Proceedings initiated against respondents uls. 7(1) and (5) of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - High Court quashed
the proceedings in exercise of power under s.482 - Propriety
of - Held: Not proper - Factual controversies were involved
which could not have been adjudicated by the High Court in
I'
D proceedings u/s. 482 - Scope and ambit of s. 482 was not kept
in view by the High Court - Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 - s. 7.
Complaints were filed alleging commission of
E offences punishable under s.16 rlw s.7(1) and 7 (5) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It was alleged
that the samples.collected by the Food Inspector from the
business premises of respondent were sent to the public
analyst and the report received showed that the said
F
samples contained a prohibited substance and thus the
food articles, in respect of which the samples were
collected, and which were being stored and sold by the
respondents, were adulterated.
Respondents filed application uls.482 CrPC for
G quashing of the complaints taking the stand that there
was no violation on their part and that the ingredients in
the concerned food article were within the permissible limit.
...
The High Court held that the complaints filed did not
H
134
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. V. RAMESHCHANDRA 135
SHIVRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC.
•
disclose any offence and accordingly quashed the A
proceedings.
In appeals to the Court, it was contended that it was
not a case where s.482 CrPC had any application and that
jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC should not have been
exercised by the High Court. Respondents, on the other B
hand, contended that analysis by the public analyst was
'
not done keeping in view the requisite norms.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
....
HELD: The parameters for exercise of jurisdiction c
under s.482 CrPC has been highlighted by this Court in
large number of cases. To a pointed query as to whether
in the petition filed before the High Court, there was any
challenge or any specific stand taken about the requisite
norms having not been followed by the public analyst, it D
was submitted that though that was not specifically done
yet the specific stand was that there was no violation and
the ingredients were within the permissible limit. The High
Court does not appear to have considered this aspect at
all and factual controversies were involved which could E
not have been adjudicated in the proceedings under
Section 482 CrPC. That being so, the exercise of power
under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court was clearly
"
indefensible. [Paras 6, 7] [137-D-F]

## Text

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 134
A
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
•
V.
RAMESHCHANDRA SH!VRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1457-1463 of 2004
B
APRIL 28, 2009
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.)
~
•
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Parameters
c
for exercise of jurisdiction under s. 482 - Discussed -
Proceedings initiated against respondents uls. 7(1) and (5) of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - High Court quashed
the proceedings in exercise of power under s.482 - Propriety
of - Held: Not proper - Factual controversies were involved
which could not have been adjudicated by the High Court in
I'
D proceedings u/s. 482 - Scope and ambit of s. 482 was not kept
in view by the High Court - Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 - s. 7.
Complaints were filed alleging commission of
E offences punishable under s.16 rlw s.7(1) and 7 (5) of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It was alleged
that the samples.collected by the Food Inspector from the
business premises of respondent were sent to the public
analyst and the report received showed that the said
F
samples contained a prohibited substance and thus the
food articles, in respect of which the samples were
collected, and which were being stored and sold by the
respondents, were adulterated.
Respondents filed application uls.482 CrPC for
G quashing of the complaints taking the stand that there
was no violation on their part and that the ingredients in
the concerned food article were within the permissible limit.
...
The High Court held that the complaints filed did not
H
134
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. V. RAMESHCHANDRA 135
SHIVRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC.
•
disclose any offence and accordingly quashed the A
proceedings.
In appeals to the Court, it was contended that it was
not a case where s.482 CrPC had any application and that
jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC should not have been
exercised by the High Court. Respondents, on the other B
hand, contended that analysis by the public analyst was
'
not done keeping in view the requisite norms.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
....
HELD: The parameters for exercise of jurisdiction c
under s.482 CrPC has been highlighted by this Court in
large number of cases. To a pointed query as to whether
in the petition filed before the High Court, there was any
challenge or any specific stand taken about the requisite
norms having not been followed by the public analyst, it D
was submitted that though that was not specifically done
yet the specific stand was that there was no violation and
the ingredients were within the permissible limit. The High
Court does not appear to have considered this aspect at
all and factual controversies were involved which could E
not have been adjudicated in the proceedings under
Section 482 CrPC. That being so, the exercise of power
under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court was clearly
"
indefensible. [Paras 6, 7] [137-D-F]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
F
Nos. 1457-1463 of 2004
From the Judgement and Order dated 03.09.2002 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc.
Application Nos. 5511 of 1994, 2797, 2798, 2800, 2801, 2804
and 2805 of 1997.
G
..
Pinky Behra, Hemantika Wahi, for the Appellant.
"""'
M.R.Anand, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Tarun
Satija, Lawyer's Knit & Co., for the Respondent.
H
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 7 S.C.R.
•
A
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a
learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court allowing seven
B applications filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). In the applications prayer
was made to quash the proceedings pending before four Judicial
Magistrates and one Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom
•
three proceedings were pending. The cases were instituted on
c the basis of complaints filed for alleged commission of offences
punishable under Section 16 read with Section 7(1) and 7 (5)
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the
'Act'). It was indicated in the complaints that the Food Inspector
had gone to the shop of the respondents and had obtained
sample in accordance with the Prevention of Food Adulteration
D Rules, 1955 (in short the 'Rules'). The samples were sent to the
public analyst and the report was received showing that the food
product of samples which were collected contained 'Saccharin'.
The use of Saccharin or addition thereof in a food product was
impermissible and food articles containing Saccharin which was
E not permitted to be used made the food article adulterated. The
present respondents had stored the food articles in the business
premises with the intention to sell them and had actually sold
the articles to the Food Inspector. On receiving the complaints
the concerned Magistrates registered the complaints and issued
"
F process. The High Court was moved for quashing the
complaints. It was the stand of the applicants that the sample
did not contain any prohibited substance and the food article
was not adulterated. The stand was that the food product in
respect of which the samples were collected was really a Pan
Masala and, therefore, has to be construed as such. It was
G therefore submitted that if it is treated as Pan Masala it fulfills
the requisite standard.
•
2. Stand of the present appellants was that the quantum
of artificial sweetener exceeded the maximum limit of artificial
'•
H sweetener.
-
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. V. RAMESHCHANDRA 137
SHIVRATAN KOSAR AND ANR. ETC. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
3. The High Court accepted the prayer on the ground that
A
the complaint did not disclose any offence. Accordingly, the
proceedings were quashed.
4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that it is not a case where Section 482 of
Code has any application. The exercise of jurisdiction under
8
Section 482 of Code should not have been made. Reference is
made to the Food Analyst report on the basis of which the
proceedings were initiated.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand c
submitted that the analysis by the public analyst was not done
keeping in view the requisite parameters. It is submitted that
the norms which were applicable when the analysis were made
had not been kept in view.
6. The parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under D
Section 482 of the Code has been highlighted by this court in
large number of cases. To a pointed query as to whether in the
petition filed before the High Court there was any challenge or
any specific stand taken about the requisite norms having not
been followed by the public analyst, it was submitted that though
E
that was not specifically done yet the specific stand was that
there was no violation and the ingredients were within the
permissible limit. The High Court does not appear to have
considered this aspect at all and factual controversies were
involved which could not have been adjudicated in the
F
proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.
7. That being so, the exercise of power under Section 482
of the Code is clearly indefensible. The impugned order of the
High Court is set aside. The appeals are allowed. We make it
clear that we have interfered in the matter because the scope G
and ambit of Section 482 of the Code had not been kept in
view and not on merits.
B.B.B.
Appeals allowed.