TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the company and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were the Directors of the Company, including the company also. A complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate who summoned all the respondents for being tried for violating the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Acts). The said complaint was filed by the Assistant Municipal Prosecutor in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi against the accused for having committed offences under sections 7/16 of the Act. The only point canvassed before us was that on the allegations made in the complaint, a clear case was made out against all the respondents and the High Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings on the ground that the complaint did not disclose any offence. Before going through the relevant part of the complaint, it mag be necessary to say a few words about the law on the subject. After the coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, B 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the present Code ), there was a serious divergence of judicial opinion on the question as to whether where a power is exercised under section 397 of the present Code, the High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 561A (which is now s. 482) is quite different from the powers conferred by the present Code under the provisions of s. 397. It may be that in some cases there may be overlapping but such cases would be few and far between. It is well settled that the inherent powers under s. 482 of the present Code can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. Further, the power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly. If these considerations are kept in mind, there will be no inconsistency between sections 482 and 397(2) of the present Code. The limits of the power under s. 482 were clearly defined by this Court in Raj Kapoor and Ors. v. State and Ors.(l) where Krishna Iyer J. Observed as follows:- Even so, a general principle pervades this branch of law when a specific provision is made: easy resort to inherent power is not right except under compelling circumstances. Not that there is absence of jurisdiction but that inherent power should not invade areas set apart for specific power under the same Code. Another important consideration which is to be kept in mind is as to when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting any thing, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under s. 482 of the present Code. In the instant cases the argument of the appellant before us is that taking the complaint as a whole, it cannot be said that no offence is made out or that the facts mentioned in the complaint do not constitute any offence against the respondents or some of them. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents submitted that even taking the allegations of the complaint ex facie no case for trial has been made out at all. Before going to the complaint, we might state that it is common ground that the complaint clearly contains the allegations regarding the visit of the Inspector to the shop of respondent No. 6 (Madan Lal) and that the sample taken by him, which was sent to the Public Analyst, was manufactured by Upper Ganges Sugar Mills, Daryagang, Delhi having its registered office at Calcutta and that the Public Analyst found the samples to be adulterated. There is no dispute regarding these facts. The only point on which the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable. In these circumstances, therefore, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the argument of the High Court that no case against the Directors (accused Nos 4 to 7) has been made out ex facie on the allegations made in the complaint and the proceedings against them were rightly quashed. We, however, do not agree that even accused No. 3, respondent No. 1, who is Manager of the Company and therefore directly incharge of its affairs, could fall in the same category as the Directors. Hence, we would set aside that part of the judgment of the High Court which quashes the proceedings against the Manager, respondent No. I (Ram Kishan Rohtagi). Although we uphold the order of the High Court we would like to state that there are ample provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which the Court can take cognizance against persons who have not been made accused and try them in the same manner along with the other accused. In the old Code, s. 351 contained a lacuna in the mode of taking cognizance if a new person was to be added as an accused. 1 he Law Commission in its 41st Report (para 24.81) adverted to this aspect of the law and s. 319 of the present Code gave fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence the Court can take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused. But, we would hasten to add that this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. More than this we would not like to say anything further at this stage. We leave the entire matter to the discretion of the court concerned so that it may act according to law. We would, however, make it plain that the mere fact that the proceedings have been quashed against respondent Nos. 2 to S will not prevent the court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against them has been made out on the additional evidence led before it. For these reasons, therefore, we allow this appeal only to the extent that the order of the High Court quashing the proceedings against the Manager (Rohtagi), respondent No. 1, is hereby set aside and that of the Metropolitan Magistrate is restored. As regards the other respondents (Directors) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
