CR.MA/10269/2003 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 10269 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. L. DAVE =============================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? =============================================== M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & Another. =============================================== Appearance : Mr. INDRAVADAN PARMAR for the petitioner. Ms. ARCHANA C. RAVAL, APP, for Opponent No.1. Mr. SN SINHA for Opponent No.2. =============================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. L. DAVE Date : 24/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The Western Railway, through one H. M. Shukla, Food Inspector, Ahmedabad, lodged a complaint before Metropolitan Court No.6, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Section CR.MA/10269/2003 2/4 JUDGMENT 16(1) read with Section 7(i) and Section 2(ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (“PFA Act” for short) and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (“PFA Rules” for short), allegedly committed by six persons. The said complaint was lodged on 5th August, 2002. The petitioner, M/s United Breweries Limited, Bangalore, is accused No.6 in the complaint. 2. As per the complaint, the complainant was working with the Western Railways as Food Inspector, at the relevant time. While performing his duties, he took sample of Kingfisher Premium Packaged Drinking Water, by purchasing 9 one litre size bottles of water, paying Rs.10/- per bottle. The contents of the bottles were analysed through Public Analyst and were not found to be in conformity with the standards and, therefore, the complaint in question. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashment of the complaint for the reason that there is not an iota of allegation against the petitioner in the complaint; and that the petitioner had no nexus with the sample taken except that the sample was sold in a brand name, the trademark of which is owned by the petitioner, namely, Kingfisher Premium Packaged Drinking Water. 4. Heard learned Advocate, Mr. Parmar, for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Raval, for opponent No.1 and learned Advocate, Mr. Sinha, for opponent No.2. 5. Learned Advocate, Mr. Parmar, contended that the complaint does not make out any case against the petitioner for the offences for which the complaint is lodged. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and accused No.5-M/s Hindustan Minerals and Breweries, Gandhinagar, wherein accused No.5 has been permitted to pack CR.MA/10269/2003 3/4 JUDGMENT and sell mineral water in the brand name of Kingfisher provided the mineral water met with the parameters prescribed in the agreement and, for using the brand name, the petitioner was to get royalty. The petitioner is nowhere in the picture right from manufacture to sale and, therefore, the complaint may be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the contention is that the petitioner is responsible vicariously because he takes share from the profit made through sale of such adulterated mineral water and, therefore, the complaint may not be quashed. It was argued by learned Advocate, Mr. Sinha, that the Supreme Court has observed that powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are very wide, but are to be exercised sparingly and cautiously, particularly, in a case where the petitioner is shown to have already invoked revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court also observed that only in cases where the High Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, the High Court may, in its discretion, prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice in exercise of provisions of Section 482 [Rajinder Prasad v. Bashir & Others, (2001) 8 SCC 522]. Mr. Sinha submitted that the trial has been stalled by virtue of an order passed by this Court for number of years and, therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has adopted the arguments of Mr. Sinha. 8. On a bare perusal of the complaint, it is clear that throughout the complaint, the complainant does not involve the petitioner in any manner with either manufacture or distribution or sale of the goods in question. In fact, except reference to the petitioner in the cause title, there is not a whisper about the petitioner or about his CR.MA/10269/2003 4/4 JUDGMENT involvement in the offence. It cannot be said that any offence is made out against the petitioner. Apart from this, even as can be seen from the Franchisee Agreement, the role of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a trade mark, which he has permitted to be used by accused No.6, M/s Hindustan Minerals and Breweries provided the water so sold is of a particular specification and standard specified in the agreement. It cannot be said that he is a party to manufacture and selling of sub-standard water, which is not in conformity with the prescribed standard only because he collects royalty and, particularly, in absence of any material to draw such an inference. The documentary evidence relied upon by the complainant, as can be seen from the complaint, also does not indicate any nexus between the petitioner and the alleged offence. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the complaint against accused No.6 deserves to be quashed. 9. In the result, the application is allowed. The complaint, being Criminal Case No.32 of 2002, pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Ahmedabad, qua the petitioner-accused No.6 is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. 10. It would be open for the parties to move the Trial Court for an expeditious trail. [ A. L. DAVE, J. ] gt