Kh re - STATEOFPUNJAB i (tst~<SSC
“NOHAR CHAND | “May 17, 1984 - ID.A. Desat AND AMARENDRANATH SEN, i
Territorial Jarisdtction of the Criminal Court, ‘whether the ‘Court where ; ; “sub-standard fertiliser was found be marketed will have the Jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the manufacturer of -sub-standard fertilizer, ‘even if the ; manufacturing activity is at an entirely different place and under different court Cc a Jurisdiction along with the marketing agent-—-Codé of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , - (4et of 1974), sections 179 and 180, scope of.
The respondent was carrying 4 on business ‘of manufacturing fertilizers at Ludhiana under the name and style’ of Messrs ‘Varinder Agro-Chemicals © - |
. ; (India) and marketed his proudct through his agent Messrs Sachdeva D . . Enterprises Kapurthala. On finding the sample collected by a-Fertilizer . ~
To Inspector from the said agent on December 12; 1978 to‘be of sub- standard, quality the Chief -Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala filed a -crimisial com.
. plaint being CC No. 156-C of 1980 on December 24,1980 in the Court of
Db, Ta, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala against the. two partners of
“4 .. ‘Messrs Sachdeva Enterprises and the Respondent under s. 13A_ of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with s. 13(1) (a) of the ‘Fertilizers’
Control Order 1957. On July 20,1981 respondent moved ad application, -before the trial court praying that he be discharged and-the proceedings be dropped. against him on’ the ground that the Kaputthala Court hdd no, territorial jurisdiction to try him because he carried on. Susiness of mamfacture of fertilizers at Ludhiana. Relying on the decision of the _ Gujarat High | Court in State of Gujarat v. Agro-Chemicals etc. "(1980 Cr. L. 5. Dp.
. 516), the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the respondent and, wo drop ped the proceedings ggainst him. The Criminal Revn, Application No. _. af - 48 of 1981 filed by the State of Punjab was allowed by the ‘Additional.
; a Sessions Judge; Kapurthala holding. that in view of the provisions of Sectian. 180 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure, the Kapurthala Court had jurisdic-. “tion to, try the respondent along with the other coaccused. Thereupon the . ‘respondent preferred a revision petition being Crl. Misc. No. 1473 M. of rel 1982 ‘in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A learned Single Judge of — ' the High | Court relying on the decision of that Court in Satinder Singh and. Ors.” ve State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. Appla. No. 1158-M/1981 dated
. 24-2. 1982 which accepted the view taken by. the Gujarat High Court, .
BY .. allowed the revision petition and set-aside the decision of ‘the Additional - . Sessions Judge. Hence the State Appeal. by Special Leave of the Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
: was ‘found to be. maketed will have the jurisdiction ‘to try: manufacturer of | 7
HELD: 1. The Court in whose jurisdiction sub- standard fertilizer
" sub-standard fePPMizer ¢ even if the manufacturing activity is at an entirely
: different place. The manufacturer as. well as the. dealer can be tried at a ~ place where the consequences cf the manufacturing and selling of sub- _ .
” standard fertilizer had ensued as envisaged in ss. 179 and 180 of the ‘Code ® of Criminal Provedate. {843C-D] ,
-
1 2, Now if- maufacturing sub-standard. fertilizer’ is ty itself” an
Offence .and marketing the sub-standard fertilizer is itself.a distinct offence but they are so inter-connected as cause and effect, both can be tried at one or the other place. If ono. manufactur es the sub-standard fertilizer, wherever _ it is marketed, the inter-relation’ or casual ‘connection is of cause and effect,
‘The situation will be adequately covered by ss. 179 and 180 of the Code of.
; “Criminal Procedure. [843G- H]
inharee Production, Haryana State Coopt. Supply And Market- . ing Pederation Lid. (HAFED) Fertilizer v. State of Punjab; Cri. “Mise. No. 6763..M of — 1982 decided 1 by. the High Court on 9.3. 1983 approved. °
> 3. When | a sample of fertilizer is taken from a. bag which was io et the s same ‘condition as delivered@by the manufacturer and. it was in possession
‘ofa marketing agent manufacture and sale of sub-standard fertilizer would
- constitute . indisputably one transaction.” But this. is predicated upon the
| of. 1984.
facts which may be disclosed in the trial and proved. [844D-B] .
Bhagwan Das Jagdish Chander. ve’ Delhi. Administration » (i973
Supp. S.C.R 30, distinguished. ;
. CRIMINAL APPELLATE inIspICTION : Criminal Appeal No.. 247
* Appeal by Spécial leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 28th July, 1982 of the Punjab: and Haeyana High Court i in Criminal Misc. No. 1472- M82: a
KC, Dua and S.K. Bagga for‘the Appellant.
Frank Anthony and Sushil -Kumar for the Respondent, .
* The. Judgment of ‘the Court was delivered by
- Desay 5 Special leave granted.
. One Nohar. Chand; the respondent herein, was carrying on
- ae
PUNJAB vy, NOHAR.CHAND (Desai; J.)
business of manufacturing fertilisers at Ludhiana under-the name. and style of Mis Varinder Agro-Chemicals (India). One . inspector
“BAL designated as Fertiliser, Inspector visited the premises of M/s ; Sachdeva Enterprises, Kapurthala (‘agent’ for short) on December
12, 1978 and obtained’a sample of the fertiliser manufactured by
Nohar Chand which was being marketed by the agent. The sample * was obtained for the purpose of analysis to ascertain. whether it conformed to the prescribed standard: On analysis it was ‘found to .
be sub-standard. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala filed a
~ criminal: complaint being C.C..No. 156-C of 1980 on - December 24, ~* 1980, in the Court of the Chief Judicial “Magistrate, Kapurthala against the two partners of M/s Sachdeva Enterprises, one Raj Shetty and réspondent Nohar Chand Gupta, the manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser u/s 13-A’cf the Essential Commoditics Act,
1955’ read’ with Section 12(1}(a) of the Fertilisers Control Order, 1987. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charge’ - _ against all the accused for the afore-mentioned offence.-On July 20, 1981 respondent Nohar ‘Chand moved an application before the |
Jearned Magistrate praying that he-be discharged and the proceedings be dropped against him on the ground that the Court of Chief ‘Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala had no territorial jurisdiction to try him because he carried on business of manufacture of fertilisers at - dings against him. The State of Punjab preferred Criminal Revision
Sessions Judge, ‘Kapurthala who by hjs judgment.and order dated February 13, 1982 set aside the order of learned Chief Judicial
: Magistrate holding that in view of the provisions contained ‘in Section
180 of the Code of- Criminal Procedure, the Court of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala had Jurisdiction to try the respon-
*
- dent along with the other co-accused. Thereupon the respondent , ; pteferred a revision p>tition being Criminal Misc.. No. 1473-M of’
1982 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A learned Single Judge of the High Court held that in view of the decision i in Satinder Singh and Ors. ¥. State 6f Punjab(2) which accepted. the ‘view taken _ by the Gujarat High Court, the learned Additional Sessions ' Judge was in error in interfering with the order of the learned Chief Judi-
“cial Magistrate and that the Court of the Chief Judicial’ 1 Magistrate, a). 1980 ‘Criminal Law Journal sis, (O Cri. Mise. Application N No. 1158-M of 1981 dated 34. 2. i982
- Ludhiana, The learned -Chief Judicial. Magistrate following the — | decision of the Gujarat High Court. in State of Gujarat v. Agro- Chemicals ete..°) discharged the respondent and dropped the procee-
Application No. 48. of 1981 -in the Court of the learned Additional -
AL e an stiPREME cout RuboRTS a 1984 3s.c. R
Kaputthata had no jurisdiction to try Nohar Chand, the manufac:
* turer. Acc&rdingly the revision. applicati on was allowed and the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was set asidé and.
the one bythe learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was restored.. Hence this appeal by special: leave.
. ~ The allegation against the resporident was that he matufac- -tured sub-standard fertiliser and. through his. marketing agents M/s
Sachdeva Enterprises, Kapurthala marketed the same. The offence
~ was disclosed when the Fertiliser Inspector took a sample:of the sub- — standard fertiliser from the marketing agents at Kapurthala. It is an admitted position ‘that the respondent who is the manufacturer carries on-his bussiness of manufacturing fertilisers at Ludhiana. The question posed is :. whether the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala where the marketing agents of sub- standard. fertiliser manufactured by the respondent marketed the same, wil have " jurisdiction to try the respondent; the smanufacturer - of the, sub- _ standard fertiliser along with the marketing agents.
“The learned Single Judge of the’ High Court following the decision in Satinder Singh's case held that the manufacturer ° of sub-standard fertiliser cannot be tried. where the. commodity was being marketed The view taken by the High Court with. respect is
’ wholly ‘untenable in law. But before examining the legal position.“ - Subsequent developtierit of law i in the same & High Court | on this very point may be noticed.
To begin with, let it be pointed out. that the decision, against
-which the present appeal is being heard was quoted before another
» learned - ‘Single Judge of the same High Court and as. the deanied
7 Single Judge had grave doubt about the correctness of the view taken - iby the learned Judge i in this case, he referred the matter for authori- “tative pronouncement toa ‘latger bench of the same High Court. |
| This referred matter : Jacharge: Production, Haryana Staté Cooperative. Supply and Morketing Federation Lid, (HAFED) Fertilizer , v. State of Punjab?) came up for hearing before a Division Bench’
_- of the High Court.- The Division Bench referred to the decision: rendered: by the learned Single Judge in this case.and clearly . disapproved it and iri,terms overruled it, ‘Simultaneously it also _ overruled: the desision: in Saritder Singh's case ‘which the! iearned - . Judge had followed i in this case. It.can be safely said that the larger “
——etn
CH) Criminal Mise. No. 6763- M of 1982 dated % 3.83.
id
~L.
PUNJAB ¥. NOHAR CIIAND (Desai, J. )
bench . of the “High Court has disapproved the view taken by the Tearhed Judge in this case.
The respondent, the manufacturer of the sub-standard fertiliser is. to be tried alongwith those who marketed the sub-standard fertiliser manufactured by him as his agents. The question is whether the court where the sub-standard fertiliser i is marketed would have jurisdiction to try the manufacturer of the sub-standard fertiliser
~ whose manufacturing activity is at a different place. This very argument was posed before the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court after referring to Sections 179 and 180 of the Code: of Criminal Procedure, 1973 held that the court where sub-standard fertiliser was found to be marketed will have the jurisdiction to try the manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser even if the manufacturing
' activity is at an entirely different. place. The Division Bench held that the manufacturer ‘as well as the dealer can be tried at a place
_ where the consequences . of the manufacturing and: selling of sub- standard fertiliser had ensued as envisaged in Sections 179 and 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That in our opinion {appears to be the correct view in law. . ~
. Section 179 provides that when an act is an offerice: by reason of 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 ‘dr such conse-
“quence has ensued. Section 180 provides that where an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be 4n offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first-mentioned: offence may be inquired into or tried bya a court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done.
Now if manufacturing: sub-standard fertiliser is by itself an offence and marketing the sub-standard fertiliser is itself a distinct offence but they are so-inter-connected as cause and effect, both can - be tried at one or the other place. If one manufactures the substandard fertiliser, wherever it is marketed the inter-relation ‘or casual connection is of cause, and effect.”. The situation will be adequately covered by Secs. 179 and 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are in agreement with the later. decision of the Division Bench rendered on March 9, 1983 that the court where the a .
oF
_ sub-standard fertiliser is being marketed will equally have the
‘SUPREME COURT REPORTS = [1984] 3 s.c.r, jurisdiction to try the ‘manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser. This is so obvious that any further discussion appears to us to be superfluous.
Mr. Frank _ Anthony, learned counsel who appeared for the. respondent urged that the concurring decision of Alagiriswami, J. in Bhagwandas Jagdish Chander v. Delhi Administration®) would clearly
' show that the manuéacture of an adulterated article of food and selling the same cannot be said to be part and parcel of the same transaction and that unless therefore the complaint shows that the
" sample of fertiliser was taken from a bag_of fertiliser as delivered by - the manufacturer, it is, distinctly possible that adulteration may have taken. place. on @ subsequent occasion and therefore one cannot infer manufacture of sub-standard fertiliser from it being so marketed when the sample was taken from the marketing agency. This ‘approach overlooks the fact that the trial is yet to be held. One can
. envisage two situations, When a sample of fertiliser is taken from a bag which was in the same condition as delivered by the manufac-
' turer and it was in possession of a marketing agent manufacture and sale of sub-standard fertiliser would constitute. indisputably one
. transaction. But this is predicated upon the facts which may be disclosed in the trial and proved. In Bhagwandas Jagdish Chandeér’s case, the allegation was that the appellant before the court sold ghee to a vendor which was on analysis: found to be adulterated ahd both were jointly tried under Section 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the course of trial,
-the purchaser of ghee wanted warrantor to be discharged so that he ‘-can be examined as a defence witness to prove his own purchase of the offending article. This application was granted and the warrantor was acquitted. After the acquittal of the warrantor, the learned Magistrate impleaded the manufacturer Mr. Gauri Shanker Prem Narain under section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. An appeal was preferred by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the acquittal of the warrantor and the other accused.
The High Court maintained the acquittal of Lakshmi Narain but set: — aside the acquittal of warrantor. That is how the matter came up to this Court, We fail to see how this decision can at all help.the respondent in this' case. However, reliance was placed on one observation in the’ concurring. judgment of- Alagiriswami, J. which reads as under : ; ;
ne
(1) [1975} Suppl. SCR 30.
PUNJAB y. NOHAR CHAND (Desai, J.)
“Tt would be noticed that while the charge states that the sample of ghee purchased from Lakshmi Narain was found to be adulterated, there is no allegation that the ghee sold by the appellant to Lakshmi Narain was adulterated. While it may be readily conceded that the common Object . .
or common intention or unity of purpose between the
- * manafacturer, the distributor and the vendor was tq sell the article of food sold, it is not said that it was to sell the adulterated grticle of food.”
“Ata later stage, it is observed that ‘the validity of the charge has to be decided an the facts put forward as the prosecution case. If it is not established against anyone of them that the article of food manufactured, distributed or sold by him: was adulterated that person will be acquitted, not because the charge was not valid or was defective but because there was no proof to substantiate the. charge. But without that allegation there cannot be said to bea unity of purpose or common object or common intention on the part of all
‘of them who manufacture, distribute or sell the adulterated food.’ It was further observed that “the manufacture, distribution and sale of .
adulterated ghee would be the same transaction if it was found to be adulterated at all the three stages. Otherwise it only means that they were all same transaction only in the sense that the common object of all of them is the selling of the ghee.” How the extracted observation in any way helps the respondent passes comprehension. Firstly, the question of jurisdiction of the court trying the offender was.
never raised in that case. And here the respondent was discharged pn the ground. of want of jurisdiction. Secondly, the decision proceeded on the facts of the case as would be evident. from the - extracted passage which recites the charge. That aspect does not figure in this case. Let it be made clear that no affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent in this Court, nor thé complaint was .read over to us. And the case proceeds on che averments not presently disputed. Therefore in this case we are left-with the allegations as found in the judgment of the High Court and the learned Additional.
Sessions Judge and it clearly establishes that where the _Inafketing agent of the manufacturer of fertiliser which is found to be substandard is being prosecuted for marketing sub-standard: fertiliser, the manufacturer can be tried with him and the court where the sub- standard fetiliser was marketed will have jurisdiction to ity them both.
cv °
SUPREME COURT REPORTS —s-*—*&1984] 3.8.0.R. .S
“Therefore the High Court was in error in setting aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This was the only point in this appeal and as it clearly transpired that the High Court .
_was in error-in interfering with the order of the learned Additional -
Sessions Judge, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High. Court is:quashed and set aside and the judgment of the learned
Additional Sessions Fudge | Is restored. - 1 ;
SRO . Appeal allowed »