2012 (3) TMI 664 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the cognizance of an offence can be taken twice?
2. Whether a second complaint in respect of the same offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 can be filed?
3. Whether the second complaint filed under the Act can be based on a public analyst report that stands superseded?

Summary:

Issue 1: Cognizance of an Offence Twice
The court held that "the cognizance of an offence can be taken only once." The first complaint was filed against three accused, and the second complaint was barred. The cognizance of the offence against new accused persons could only be taken during the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge erred in allowing the second complaint, which was not permissible under the law.

Issue 2: Filing of Second Complaint
The court found that the second complaint was not maintainable. The learned Sessions Judge's reliance on Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., which permits a supplementary charge-sheet in police cases, was erroneous. The procedures for police cases and complaint cases are distinct, and amalgamating them caused serious prejudice to the accused. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act does not allow for a second complaint akin to a supplementary charge-sheet.

Issue 3: Superseded Public Analyst Report
The court agreed with the petitioner that the second complaint, based on a superseded public analyst report, was illegal. The petitioner's right to have the second sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory was defeated, causing prejudice. The second complaint, filed on the basis of a sanction obtained from a superseded report, was non-est.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the entire proceedings in both cases, setting aside the orders dated 11.05.2004 in Crl.R.P.No.321/2004 and 04.09.2004 and 26.07.1999 in Crl.M.C. No.2695/2004. The second complaint was not maintainable, and no useful purpose would be served by putting the petitioner to trial due to the passage of time and the putrid state of the sample. Both petitions were allowed.