REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.   1457-1463  OF 2004

State of Gujarat and Anr. ..Appellants

Versus

Rameshchandra Shivratan Kosar and Anr. etc. ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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 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

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 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 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 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  therefore  submitted  that  if  it  is  treated  as  Pan  

Masala it fulfills the requisite standard.

2

2. Stand  of  the  present  appellants  was  that  the  quantum of  artificial  

sweetener exceeded the maximum  limit of artificial sweetener.  

3. The High Court accepted the prayer on the ground that 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 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 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 Section 482 of the  

Code has  been highlighted  by  this  court  in  large number of  cases.  To a  

3

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 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  

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 and ambit of Section 482 of the Code had not been kept in  

view and not on merits.  

……..…………………..….…….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…….……………………………..J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 28, 2009      

4