Sachin Mittal vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petition was premature and dismissed it. The Court noted that the petitioner was involved in the sale of chemical substances and that while the criminal proceedings were initially against a co-accused, the investigation into the petitioner was to establish the chain of perpetrators. An interim stay had been granted to the petitioner, due to which the charge sheet was filed only against the co-accused, and the investigation concerning the petitioner remained pending. The Court observed that the petitioner possessed a license to operate his establishment but failed to produce authorization for selling chemicals whose inappropriate usage could damage public health. Evidence indicated a huge and regular supply of such chemicals by the petitioner to the co-accused, suggesting a prima facie case. The Court found that the material collected, including chemical analysis reports, prima facie indicated adulterated food items unsafe for consumption, and the seizure, laboratory reports, and chain of distribution connected the petitioner. The Court concluded that the allegations, if taken at face value, disclosed cognizable offences under both the IPC and the Food Safety and Standards Act. The question of whether both sets of provisions could simultaneously operate was a mixed question of law and fact to be adjudicated during trial. Therefore, considering the gravity of allegations, public health implications, and prima facie material, the Court found no ground to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, Sachin Mittal, sought to quash a criminal case registered against him under Sections 420, 272, 273, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 51 and 59 of the Food Safety Act. The case stemmed from the sealing of a godown belonging to a co-accused, Sunil Agarwal, where Dexotrin powder and RM Chemical were found. Samples were sent for testing, and it was alleged that Agarwal stored these chemicals for food adulteration. During the investigation, the petitioner's laboratory and chemical supplier firm was inspected, and his bills were seized. The petitioner was accused of supplying chemicals used for adulterating milk, despite no adulterated articles being found at his premises. The petitioner argued that his GST and Shop Act licenses authorized him to sell chemicals, and no direct evidence linked him to adulteration. The prosecution contended that the petitioner's systematic supply of chemicals to the co-accused indicated a conspiracy to sell adulterated milk, posing a danger to public health.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR and consequent proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the grounds of being malicious, frivolous, and an abuse of process of law, particularly concerning the alleged offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act and the invocation of IPC provisions? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the alleged offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act are compoundable and triable by a designated authority, making the invocation of IPC provisions unwarranted. He argued that there was no direct evidence connecting him to adulteration or misbranding, and continuation of proceedings would cause irreparable harm to his reputation and business. He relied on his GST and Shop Act licenses as proof of authorization to sell chemicals. He cited cases like Balmukund Gard Vs. State of M.P., Shambudayal vs. State of Gujarat, Jitendra Kumar vs. State of Punjab, Ajit Kumar Sangwi V/s State of M.P., and Vinay S/o Ashok Goyal V/s State of M.P. Revenue's arguments: The State opposed the petition, arguing that the allegations revealed a systematic and deliberate act of preparing and selling adulterated milk, dangerous to public health. They contended that the acts of deception and misrepresentation fell under Section 420 IPC, and the conspiracy and adulteration attracted Sections 272, 273, and 120-B IPC, in addition to the Food Safety and Standards Act offences. Therefore, the proceedings should not be quashed at the threshold.