1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.512 OF 1996 1. Dr. Hardas s/o Govindram Motwani, Age: 56 years, Partner and Technical Competent person of petitioner No.3 r/o 6 Industrial Estate (Polo ground) Indore ( M.P.) 2. Shri Nand Righram Motwani, Age Major, Partner and competent technical person of petitioner no.3, r/o as above. 3. M/s Bombay Ideal (Product India ) a partnership firm, situated at 6, Industrial Estate, Polo ground, Indore (MP). ...PETITIONERS (Orig.accused nos. 1 to 3) VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through Shri R.B.Banarase, Drug Inspector, Food & Drugs Administration (M.S.) Dudhgaonkar Complex, Parbhani, (Dist.), r/o Parbhani. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. R.S.Deshmukh,Adv., h/f Mr. S.A.Deshmukh, Adv., for the petitioners. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, A.P.P., for the respondent/State. 2 CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 20/8/2009 ------------------------ ... P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Counsel, extensively. 2. On 22nd Jan.,1997, Rule was issued and interim relief in terms of prayer clause D till the final decision was issued. The point that has been raised by Mr. Deshmukh is, whether the goods manufactured allegedly at Indore, sold to a distributor at Jalgaon who, in turn, sold it to the Government Agencies at Parbhani Government Hospital, could be prosecuted at Parbhani. 3. Though several other points were referred by the learned Counsel as to drawing of samples, deficiencies, defects in the procedure, however, his main plank of submission revolves to jurisdiction. 4. In terms of Sections 179 and 180 of Cr.P.C., which is as under, "179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. 3 When an act is an offence, due to anything, which has been done, and of a consequence, which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 180. Place of trial where act is an offence by reason of relation to other offence. When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also all offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing all offence, the first- mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done." the position is quite clear that the goods which though were manufactured at Indore, were made available for sale/distribution at Parbhani which, attracts the term "such consequences has ensued". 5. In the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Nohar Chand (Criminal Appeal No.247 of 1984, decided on 17th May, 1984), in similarly placed facts of jurisdiction concerning matter of manufacture of fertilizer, the Apex Court observed that it would be the place where the substandard goods were purchased and the manufacturer can be tried with the stockists at the Court where the substandard fertilizer was marketed and such Court will have jurisdiction to try them both. 4 6. In the instant case, though it is solely the manufacturer who is prosecuted but that will not be diluting colour and complexion of Section 179 read with Section 180 Cr.P.C. Sections 177, 178, 179 and 180 and 181 of Cr.P.C. arising in Chapter XIII will have to be read harmoniously and need not be segregated to draw a totally foreign meaning than what the terminology in Section 179 Cr.P.C. contemplates. In the situation, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.. Rule discharged. Interim stay dt.22nd Jan.,1997, vacated. Needless to add, all questions agitated in the petition addressed before this Court are kept open, to be addressed before the learned Judge, seized with the matter. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/512-96wp ...