[2025:RJ-JP:20268] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6686/2017 Guljari Lal Saini Son of Chajuram Saini Pro M/s Gulshan Ice Factory Sharan Market Kotputli, District Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. State of Rajasthan through Virendra Singh Food Inspector Office Chief Medical Officer Jaipur (1) Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mithun Chaturvedi, Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 14/05/2025 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur, whereby, the application of the present petitioner dated 28.06.2017 was dismissed. 2. On 28.06.2017, the petitioner submitted an application before the learned trial Court that for the same allegation, FIR No.361/2011 was already instituted against the petitioner and trial is being proceeded, therefore, the complaint filed by the Food Inspector for prosecuting the petitioner under Section 7/16 of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 may be dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy. It is also contended that on 09.05.2011, Chandiram Jaswani, Ram Babu and Rakesh Soni, DSO submitted a [2025:RJ-JP:20268] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6686/2017] complaint before the Police Station Kotputli alleging that M/s Gulshan Ice Factory, Kotputli is indulged in sale of adulterated Ice Cream and adulteration is strictly prohibited under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Thereafter, on the said complaint Food Inspector Virendra Singh and Sunil Garg took samples of Ice Cream and after investigation, the Police has submitted charge- sheet against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 272 of IPC read with Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. The cognizance under Sections 420 and 272 of IPC were taken against the petitioner on 27.08.2011 and thereafter, learned trial Court took cognizance on 04.11.2011 under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. However, the learned trial Court vide order dated 15.02.2017, framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 272 of IPC only. The said order was challenged in Revision Petition and the Revisional Court vide order dated 25.10.2021 maintained the order dated 15.02.2017, whereby, the charges under Sections 420 and 272 of IPC were kept and directed to frame the charges under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. It is also contended that the trial Court proceeded with the trial and on 20.11.2024 the petitioner was acquitted under Sections 420 and 272 of IPC and Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act. It is further contended that complainant Virendra Kumar, thereafter submitted a complaint under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.07.2011. The accused was summoned and appeared before the concerned trial Court on 07.06.2017 and thereafter, the petitioner moved an application on 28.06.2017 stating that the facts narrated in the present complaint is identical [2025:RJ-JP:20268] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6686/2017] to the facts which were the basis of prosecution in FIR No.361/2011, registered at Police Station Kotputli. The Learned trial Court without assigning any cogent reasons and without going into the provisions, dismissed the application of the petitioner. Therefore, the present complaint against the petitioner may be dismissed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor concedes to the fact that the FIR registered against the petitioner and the complaint submitted by the Food Inspector Virendra Kumar are identical and there is no material difference in the factual aspect of both the cases. It is also not denied by the learned Public Prosecutor that later on, the petitioner was acquitted in the offence under Sections 420 and 272 of IPC and Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act vide order dated 20.11.2024. 4. Heard and Perused the material available on record. 5. The charge-sheet against the petitioner was submitted prior to the submission of the complaint, the petitioner could not have been proceeded in subsequent complaint filed under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act as the proceeding has already been initiated against him in FIR No.361/2011 registered at PS Kotputli. Though the procedure adopted by the Police, submitting the charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act is incorrect as the special act was in existence, however, considering the facts of the present case and looking to the fact that the petitioner has also been acquitted for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act in FIR No.361/2011, I deem it proper to quash the proceeding pending [2025:RJ-JP:20268] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6686/2017] against the petitioner before the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6. The order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 23.11.2017 is set aside and resultantly the complaint filed by the Food Inspector under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner is also hereby quashed. 7. Accordingly, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed and pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-26