Issues Involved: 1. Jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. Adequacy of remedies under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Validity of the complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Summary:
Jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution: The appellants challenged the High Court's refusal to quash the complaint filed against them u/s 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The High Court dismissed their writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, suggesting that the appellants should seek discharge u/s 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the complaint was groundless. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court has vast powers under Articles 226 and 227 to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice. It emphasized that summoning an accused is a serious matter and the Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts and law before issuing summons.
Adequacy of remedies under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The High Court advised the appellants to approach the Magistrate for discharge u/s 245 of the Code. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court prematurely concluded that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the appellants, effectively foreclosing the Magistrate's discretion. The Supreme Court held that the appellants should not be compelled to undergo the agony of a criminal trial when the complaint does not prima facie constitute any offence against them.
Validity of the complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: The complaint alleged that the appellants were responsible for selling adulterated "Lehar Pepsi." The Supreme Court observed that the complaint and preliminary evidence did not establish that the appellants were manufacturers of the beverage. The bottle cap did not mention the appellants as manufacturers, and there was no evidence of their involvement in the manufacturing process. The Court highlighted the requirements under the Fruit Products Order, 1955, which mandates specific labeling for manufacturers, which was not met in this case.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction to quash the complaint, as the proceedings against the appellants were an abuse of the process of law. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the complaint and proceedings against the appellants were quashed.
9911796707
