http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PURSHOTAM DASS JHUNJUNWALA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/12/1982

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR  158            1983 SCR  (1) 895  1983 SCC  (1)   9        1982 SCALE  (2)1118  CITATOR INFO :  R          1989 SC   1  (6)  R          1990 SC 494  (4)  RF         1991 SC1260  (43)  RF         1992 SC 604  (100)

ACT:      Code of  Criminal Procedure,  1973-S. 482  -  Complaint containing clear  allegations -  High Court not justified in quashing proceedings against accused.

HEADNOTE:      The facts  of this case were almost identical with that of Municipal  Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors.  (the  case  reported  immediately  before  this  one). However Paragraph  5 of the complaint filed in this case was in the following terms:           "That accused  Ram Kishan  Bajal is  the Chairman,      accused R.P.  Neyatiya is  the  Managing  Director  and      accused Nos. 7 to 12 are the Directors of the Hindustan      Sugar Mills  Ltd. and  were incharge of and responsible      to it  for the  conduct of  its business at the time of      commission of offence."      Adopting a line of reasoning similar to the one adopted by it  in the  earlier case,  the High Court had quashed the proceeding against the accused (respondents here).      After pointing out that the law on the subject had been dealt with in the earlier case and allowing the appeal, ^      HELD: In  this case  a clear  averment has been made in Para 5  of the complaint regarding the active role played by the respondents  and the  extent of  their liability  and  a prima facie  case for  summoning the  accused has  been made out. It  cannot therefore  be said  that Paragraph  5 of the complaint is  vague and  does not implicate the respondents. As to  what would be the evidence against the respondents is not a  matter to  be considered at this stage and would have to be  proved at  the trial.  The High  Court went  wrong in holding that  tho allegations  made Paragraph  5 were vague. [891 B-D]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 749 Of 1980.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  judgment and  order dated the  5th March,  1980  of  the  Delhi  High  Court  in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 501 of 1974.      B.P. Maheshwari for the Appellant. 896      V.S. Desai and Arvind Minocha for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      PAZAL ALI,  J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated 5.3.1980 of the Delhi High Court by which the  High Court  quashed the  proceedings taken by the Municipal Corporation  of Delhi against respondent Nos. I to 11. This is a case where the facts are almost identical with the facts  of Criminal  Appeal No. 701 of 1980 which we have decided today,  with a vital difference which we shall point out hereafter.      In this  case also,  Shri M.M. Gupta, Food Inspector in the Municipal  Corporation of  Delhi purchased  a sample  of milk toffees  from shop  of Jagdish Chander Mehta situate at Lajpat  Nagar,  New  Delhi.  The  milk  toffees  which  were purchased by the food inspector were found to be adulterated by the  Public  Analyst.  The  toffees  in  this  case  were manufactured by  Hindustan Sugar  Mills, Sl,  Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay.  A complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate against  accused Nos.  I  to  12  under  sections 7116117  of   the  Prevention   of  Food   Adulteration  Act mentioning the facts stated above.      The High  Court was  of the view that the complaint did not disclose  any offence  and adopting  a similar  line  of reasoning, as  in criminal  appeal No.  701 of 1980, quashed the proceedings  against respondent  Nos. I  to 11.  We have already dealt with the law on the subject in our decision in criminal appeal  No. 701  of 1980, a copy of which is placed on the  file of  this case  The relevant allegations against the accused-respondents  are to  be found  in para  S of the complaint which may be extracted thus:           "5, That accused Ram Kishan Bajaj is the Chairman,      accused R.P.  Neyatia  is  the  Managing  Director  and      accused Nos. 7 to 12 are the Directors of the Hindustan      Sugar Mills  Ltd. and  were incharge of and responsible      to it  for the  con duct of its business at the time of      commission of offence."      Unlike the  other case, para S of the complaint of this case gives  complete details  of  the  role  played  by  the respondents and the extent of their liability. It is clearly mentioned that  Ram Kishan  Bajaj is  the Chairman  and R.P. Neyatia is the Managing Director and respondents 7 to 11 are the Directors of the Mill and were incharge of 897 and responsible  for the conduct of its business at the time of the  commission of  the offence whereas in the other case the complaint  has merely  drawn a  presumption without  any averment.      In the  instant case,  a clear  averment has  been made regarding the  active role played by the respondents and the extent of  their 1 liability. In this view of the matter, it cannot be  said that  para 5  of the  complaint is vague and does not  implicate respondents I to 11. As to what would be the evidence  against the  respondents is not a matter to be considered at  this stage and would have to be proved at the trial. We have already held that for the purpose of quashing the proceedings  only  the  allegations  set  forth  in  the complaint have to be seen and nothing further.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    From a perusal of the various clauses of the complaint, including para  5, it is quite clear that a prima facie case for summoning  the accused  has been  made out  and the High Court was  absolutely wrong  in holding that the allegations made in  para S are vague. The High Court failed to consider that the  allegations were quite clear and explicit so as to be sufficient  for taking  cognizance of the offence against the accused.      Further details  would have to be given in the shape of evidence when  the trial  proceeds and  in view of the clear allegations made in para 5 of the complaint, we are not in a position to  agree with the High Court that it is a fit case in which  it should  have exercised  its discretion under s. 482 of  the Code  of Criminal  Procedure, 1973  in order  to quash the proceedings against the accused-respondents.      For these reasons, therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Metropolitan Magistrate as a result of which all the accused will now be summoned and placed for trial in accordance with law. H.L.C.                                       Appeal allowed. 898