← Library
High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./643/2012

Manohar Lal & ORS v. State Th. Pfa, Govt Of NCT Of Delhi

2015-07-28Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sunil Gaur3 pages

$~R-1 to 3 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 643/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.

2241/2014 MANOHARLAL & ORS.

Petitioners Through:

Mr. SanjeevNarang,Advocate versus STATETH. PFA, GOVTOF NCT OF DELHI Respondent Through:

Mr. NavinSharraa,Additional PublicProsecutorforrespondentState + CRL.M.C. 644/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.

2243/2012 VIJAYKUMARBAHAL&ORS.

Petitioners Through:

Mr. SanjeevNarang,Advocate versus STATE Respondent Through:

Mr.Navin Sharma,Additional PublicProsecutorforrespondentState + CRL.M.C. 645/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.

2245/2012 DHARAMPALKUMAR&ORS.

Petitioners Through:

Mr. SanjeevNarang,Advocate versus STATETHR. FOODINSPECTOR Respondent Through:

Mr. NavinSharma,Additional PublicProsecutorforrespondentState ^ ~ By:AMULYA

K

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

ORDER

% 28.07.2015 In the above-captioned three petitions, quashing of complaint cases NO.256/PFA/DA/06, No.255/PFA/DA/06 & No.249/PFA/DA/06 for the offence under Section 7 & 16 o/ Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sought while relying upon decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.M.C.No. 1047/2008 titled M/s Bunge India Private Limited & Anr. V. The State &Anr. renderedon 20"'January,2011. With the consent of both the sides, these three petitions were heard together as quashing of the complaints in question is sought on identical grounds i.e. while placing reliance on the afore-cited decision and are being disposed of by this common order.

At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are wholesalers-cum-suppliers of Dalda Vanaspati and it is submitted that M/s Bunge India Private Limited is the manufacturer of the Dalda Vanaspati, which is said to be misbranded. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that once the complaints in question already stand quashed qua manufacturer i.e. M/s Bunge India Private Limited then there remains no justification to continue the proceedings against petitioners in the complaints in question.

Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState submits that the case of petitioners is in fact covered by the afore cited decision.

Finding the case of petitioners to be covered by the decision in M/s

BungeIndia Private Limited(supra), these three petitions are allowed and complaint cases No.

256/PFA/DA/06, No.255/PFA/DA/06 & N0.249/PFA/DA/O6for the offence under Section 7 & 16 0/Prevention ofFood Adulteration Act, 1954 are quashed qua petitioners as well. The petitions and applications are accordingly disposed of (SUNIL GAUR) Judge JULY 28, 2015 vn