HARI SHANKAR AGGARWAL versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1005, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1005
HARI SHANKAR AGGARWAL
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR
(Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2021)
MARCH 10, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – ss.7/16 – Offence
under – Cognizance taken against appellant by Courts below – If
justified – Case of  appellant that he was not a nominee of the firm
/ company in question and there being no allegation against him,
no cognizance of the offence could have taken against him – Held:
As per s.17 of the Act, notice u/s.17(2) is contemplated by company
to Local Health Authority in such form and in such manner as
prescribed that it has nominated such Director or Manager as a
person who is responsible along with written consent of such
Director – On facts, when the nomination was in Form VIII and
duly sent and received, it cannot be rejected on the ground that it
was sent on the letter head of the company – The averments in the
complaint itself clearly indicate that it was the name of one Devendra
Singh Bhadauria which was with the Local Health Authority, hence
it was he who was responsible for the affairs of the company and
reference of appellant whose name was informed by the Commercial
Tax Department, has no relevance – High Court as well as the Special
Judge erred in rejecting the case of the appellant – Further there
were no specific allegations against the appellant in the complaint
apart from that he was being impleaded as a nominee – Thus, no
cognizance
could have been taken against the appellant for offence
u/s.7/16 of the Act, and the Courts below committed error in taking
cognizance.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 297 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2018 of the High Court
of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1664 of 2018.
Ajay Jain, Jinendra Jain, Ms. Mitika, Ms. Tannu Vats, Ms. Cherry
Aggarwal, Advs. for the Appellant.
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1005
1005
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Milind Kumar, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. Manish Singhvi,
learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan. This appeal
has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 passed
by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, by which the Criminal
Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1664/2018 filed by the appellant has been
dismissed.
3. Brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are:-
a complaint was filed by the Medical and Health Department,
(Rajasthan) for offence under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 on the basis of inspection made on 02.03.2002 on
Oswal Traders Shop. In a complaint, it was averred that on information
received from Commercial Tax Department, Jaipur, the nominee of firm
is Hari Shankar Aggarwal S/o Shri Vasudev Prasad Agarwal,
therefore he has been made a party. In paragraph 11, it was further
stated that according to information received from the Local Health
Officer, Mathura the Director of M/s Bhola Baba Milk Food Industry
is Devendra Singh Bhadauria, who was also  impleaded as one of the
party. The Judicial Magistrate, Jhalwar, Rajasthan, took cognizance of
the offence and issued summon by order dated 04.08.2003. Against the
order dated 04.08.2003, the appellant-Hari Shankar Aggarwal filed
criminal case No.17 of
2017, challenging the order of the Trial Court
dated 04.08.2003.
4. The case of the appellant is that he was not a nominee of the
firm and one Devendra Singh Bhadauria was declared as nominee.
The information regarding his nomination had already been submitted to
the Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, which was received on 21.10.1995
and there being no allegation against the appellant, no cognizance of the
offence could have taken against the appellant. The petition was dismissed
by the Special Judge on 16.02.2018 against which the Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition was filed in the High Court, which has been
rejected by the impugned judgment of the High Court. Learned counsel
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
for the appellant  relying on Annexure P-2, which is an information in
Form VIII submitted to the Chief Medical Officer on 21.10.1995, submits
that form nominating Devendra Singh Bhadauria, was sent by letter
dated 21.02.1995 which was duly received by Chief Medical Officer on
21.10.1995. Hence, the complaint against the appellant alleging himself
to be nominee ought not to have been taken cognizance. It is submitted
that a copy of letter dated 21.02.1995 duly received by the Cheif Medical
Officer on 21.10.1995 has been filed before the Courts below and the
said document clearly proved that nominee was Devendra Singh
Bhadauria and cognizance could have been taken against Devendra
Singh Bhadauria and therefore the Courts below erred in dismissing
the claim of the appellant.
5. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
State submits that the document (Annexure P-2) dated 21.02.1995
claimed to be served on 21.10.1995, has not been believed by the Courts
below. He has referred to the reasons given in the order dated 16.02.2018
passed by the Special Judge, (NDPS) Jhalwar, Rajasthan. He submits
that there are reasons given by the Special Judge for not accepting the
document. Hence, the claim of the appellant has rightly been rejected.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record. Before we proceed and examine the
respective contention of the parties, we need to reproduce paragraphs
10
and 11 of the complaint which are to the following effect:-
“10. That the Krishna Brand Ghee procured by M/s
Falaudi Trading Co. from Bhole Baba Milk Food Industry 181
Sindhi Colony Whose Bill No.3074 dated 05/03/2002 was produced
from which it is clear that M/s Falaudi Trading Co. has procured
Ghee from the said firm. From the information received from
Commercial Tax Department, Jaipur the nominee of the said firm
is  Sh. Hari Shankar Aggarwal S/o Vasudev Aggarwal, therefore,
he has also been made a party.
11. That the boxes were labeled as Bhole Baba Milk Food
Industry, Agra and the said firm was given several letters even
then, no information regarding the firm was rejected. According
to information received from local health officer, Mathura  the
director of Bhole Baba Milk Food Industry Namely Devendra
Singh Bhadauria S/o Ram Sewak Singh Badoria R/o Hanuman
Nagar, Fatehabad, District Agra, has been made a party.”
HARI SHANKAR AGGARWAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
7. As per Section 17 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the notice
under Section 17(2) is contemplated by company to Local Health
Authority in such form and in such manner as has been prescribed that
it has nominated such Director or Manager as a person who is responsible
along with written consent of such Director. When we look into paragraph
10 of the complaint, it is clearly mentioned that from the information
received from the Commercial Tax Department, Jaipur, the nominee is
Hari Shankar Aggarwal. Whereas in paragraph 11 of the complaint, it
is mentioned that according to information from Local Health Officer,
Mathura, the Director is Devendra Singh Bhadauria. For the purposes
of Section 17, the nomination has to be given to the Local Health Authority,
according to the complaint itself, on the basis of the information received
from Local Health Officer, it is Devendra Singh Bhadauria. The above
statement in the complaint itself proves the case of the appellant that
information of the nomination of the Devendra Singh Bhadauria was
submitted by letter dated 21.02.1995 which was received on 21.10.1995.
8. Now, coming to the reasons relied by Dr. Manish Singhvi,
learned senior counsel for the State that the document is dated 21.02.1995,
whereas M/s Bhole Baba Milk Food industry was incorporated and
its resolution was filed on 06.03.1995. Hence, the burden of proof,
regarding the date on which nominee was made, lies
on the appellant.
The above observation of the Special Judge in no manner negate the
submission of the nomination form which was received by the Chief
Medical Officer, Mathura on 21.10.1995. The information was received
only after incorporation of the company and after the resolution referred
on 06.03.1995. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel, also submits
that the nomination form was issued in the letter head of the company
which ought not to have been sent.
9. We have perused the nomination form at page 18 of the paper
book which clearly mentions Form VIII (Rule 12-B).
10. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondent
that it could not have been sent on the letter head does not appeal to us.
When the nomination was in Form VIII and duly sent and received, it
cannot be rejected on the ground that it was sent on the letter head of
the company. As observed above, the averments in the complaint itself
clearly indicate that it was the name of Devendra Singh Bhadauria
which was with the Local Health Authority, hence it was he who was
responsible for the affairs of the company and reference of Hari
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1009
Shankar Aggarwal whose name was informed by the Commercial Tax
Department, has no relevance.
11. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the
High Court as well as the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the
case of the appellant. It is further to be noticed that there are no specific
allegations against the present appellant in the complaint apart from that
he was being impleaded as a nominee. We thus, are of the view that no
cognizance could have been taken against the appellant for the offence
under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and
the Courts below committed error in taking cognizance.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order taking
cognizance as well as the orders passed by the Courts below are set
aside.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal allowed.
HARI SHANKAR AGGARWAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN