2016 ALL SCR (Cri) 1752
RANJAN GOGOI AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
Harish Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Criminal Appeal No.931 of 2016
30th September, 2016.
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. ADITYA SINGH, Mr. AAKASH SIROHI, Mr. TUSHAR RUDRA, Mr. M.P. SHORAWALA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. T.N. SINGH, Mr. ABHISTH KUMAR
Criminal P.C. (1973), S.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Parallel proceedings - Proceedings u/Ss.272, 273 of IPC refused to be quashed by High Court - On same facts, prosecution u/S.7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was ended in acquittal - In such view of the matter prosecution under provisions of IPC is bound to be a lame/sham prosecution - Hence, proceedings quashed. (Para 4)
JUDGMENT :- Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material.
3. The challenge in this appeal is against the order of the High Court dated 07.08.2013 by which the proceedings under Section 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant has been refused to be quashed by the High Court.
4. It appears that on the same facts a prosecution under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (as it then existed) was launched against the appellant. The said proceedings have ended in acquittal on the finding that the food item was not kept for sale. The said finding in the parallel proceeding has attained finality in law. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded in the proceeding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the instant prosecution is bound to be a lame/sham prosecution. Having considered the matter in the aforesaid light, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The High Court having failed to do so, we quash the proceedings in question and allow this appeal. The order of the High Court is accordingly set aside.