Ramesh Chand Gaggar alias Ramesh Kumar Gaggar vs The State of Assam

T.C. Das, J.—The Petitioner Ramesh Chand Gaggar along with his elder brother Shri Kailash Chand Gaggar, have been prosecuted u/s 7(1) read with Section 16(i)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nowgong. The case was initiated on (sic) basis of the complaint made by the Area Food Inspector, Nowgong. The prosecution alleged that the Area Food Inspector, (sic) to the promises of Sree Laxmi Oil Mill situated at Takhowa (sic) Haibargaon, on 25.8.77 and took sample of 375 grams of Mustard oil from Sree Lakshmi oil Mill wherein Shri Kailash (sic) Gaggar was present at .the time of taking the sample. The sample was accordingly sent to the laboratory of the public Analyst Gauhati for test. On receipt of the report of Public Analyst a complaint was filed against the Petitioner and his brother Kailash Chand Gaggar under the aforesaid provisions of (sic)to stand the trial. The Petitioner and his brother duly (sic) and on framing of charges against them u/s (sic)(a)(i)(ii) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, they pleaded not guilty. Before framing of charges learned trial court examined the Area Inspector who was (sic) complainant in the case. The said witness was also cross-examined by the Petitioner.

As the above noted charges were framed against the (sic) Petitioner has approached this Court with this (sic)application to quash the proceeding as against him only, on the contention that there was no prima facie case against him.

Mr. S. Ali the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has (sic)submitted that there is no prima facie case nor any iota of (sic)dence against the Petitioner to show that the Petitioner was (sic) in any way connected with the said Mill either as proprietor or as (sic)partner or as vendor or in any manner to justify such prosecution along with the other accused for such commission of alleged offence (sic) Petitioner, as submitted by the learned Counsel, is a P.U. (sic)ent of Commerce College at Gauhati and is aged about (sic)years and all along remained at Gauhati to prosecute with (sic) studies. The other accused, namely, Sri Kailash Chand (sic)sisted by the prosecution is the proprietor of Sree (sic)Laxmi Oil Mill and he carries on his business as such. (sic) Petitioner has been wrongly impleaded as one of the (sic)ned along with Kailash Chand as because his name some (sic)or other appears as vendor while the Food Inspector took sample from the premises of Sree Lakshnri Oil Mill. Mr. Ali, the learned Counsel has further pointed out some salient features in the evidence of P.W. 1 (the Area Food Inspector) who was examined by the prosecution in the trial Court on oath. The learned Counsel has submitted that P.W. 1 has clearly stated, rather, it is categorical, that this Petitioner has no connection or nexus with the alleged offence and in course of his submission, the learned Counsel has pointed out the following few lines from the evidence ; ''On 25.8.77 I was an Area Food Inspector at Nowgong. On that day I visited the Lakshmi Oil Mill at Takhowa Road. Peon, Narayan was with me. I met the proprietor of the Mill, in Mill''. A little further below, P.W. 1 stated "Accused issued receipt, vide Ext. 2 and Ext. 2(1) is the signature of Ramesh Gaggar. The man who signed to be Ramesh Gaggar is present in the Court". The further evidence of P.W. 1 is ''I submitted complaint against accused Ramesh Chandra Gaggar and Kailash Chandra Gaggar. Kailash Chandra Gaggar is the proprietor of Sree laxmi Oil Mill and that is why he has been made accused. At the time of taking sample, Kailash Chand signed to be Ramesh Chand, I came to know this afterwards''. Further, in his evidence he has said ''I served notice on Kailash Gaggar who is present in the dock. The other accused was not present at that time''.

Placing reliance on the above evidence of P.W. 1, Mr. Ali, the learned Counsel has further submitted that Kailash Chand Gaggar is the only proprietor of Sree Lakhsmi Oil Mill and (sic) was he who put the signature of Ramesh Chand and showing him to be Ramesh Chand at the time of taking sample by the Food Inspector. Therefore, as suggested by the learned Counsel, the Petitioner Ramesh Chand cannot be treated either as a vendor or as a proprietor. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he has been wrongly tagged because Kailash Chand put his name inspite of his own at the time of issuing the receipt while the Food Inspector took sample of Mustard oil from the premises of Lakshmi Oil Mill. I have perused the evidence of P.W. 1 as enclosed in the application. In paragraph 9 of the petition (where evidence has been quoted), I have found that the Food Inspector has not stated a single word to connect Ramesh Chand along with Kailash Chand in the offence alleged against them. The main contention of Mr. Ali is that there is no evidence against Ramesh Chand, he could not be impleaded in this case and as such, the prosecution as against the Petitioner Ramesh Chand should be quashed and this being a fit case, an appropriate order can be passed even at this stage to quash the proceeding as against the Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Dey the learned (sic)P has submitted that this is not the proper stage to quash (sic) proceeding even as against the Petitioner. The prosecution is (sic) adduce further evidence and in course of evidence as submitted by Mr. Dey. If it is found that the prosecution could not establish any guilt of the Petitioner he would be acquitted at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, Mr. Dey has submitted that this is not a fit case at this stage, to interfere with by this Court.

It is true that the High Court would be reluctant to quash a proceeding in course of its trial in lower Court even if there is a fair charge for acquittal of the charges framed against him. But will it be proper and fair of the accused is directed to stand the trial if prima facie it is found that there is no allegation against him nor there is any nexus between the accused and the offence alleged to have been convicted by him? (sic)here in this case, there is no positive evidence as against the Petitioner to the effect that he was in any way connected either (sic) proprietor or as a partner of Lakshmi Oil Mill or in any (sic)y connected as vendor or as a servant of the said mill. It is (sic) not disputed that the Petitioner was a student of Commerce College at Gauhati. The other accused Kailash Chand might be (sic) elder brother or a guardian. But if the Petitioner is not (sic0 any way connected with the offence, he cannot be dragged (sic) an accused along with his elder brother against whom as (sic) alleged by the prosecution, might have cogent and sufficient evidence relating to the offence. On perusal of the evidence on (sic) record as quoted above and on hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel of the parties, I am of the opinion that this is (sic)nt case where this petition should be allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioner should be quashed.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceeding (sic) against the Petitioner is accordingly quashed. But the proceeding of C.R. case No. 334/78 as against Kailash Chand (sic) was shall however continue and the learned trial court is (sic)ed to dispose of the case as early as possible. Send down (sic) these records to the Court below immediately.