STATE OF PUNJAB

NOHAR CHAND

May 17, 1984

{D.A. DESAI AND AMARiNDRANATH SEN, JJ.]

TerritoriQi Juris4ic1io1,- of the Crlminal cOUrt, wltether the Court where

substandard fertiliser War found be marketed will have the jurisdiction tO take, cognizanceDnd try the manufacturer of sub.-Standard fertilizer, even if th~ fnanufacliµ-ingactiviiy is _a't an entirely different plticeand -under different court illrisdiction along with the marketing agent-Codi of Criminal frocedure, 1973 "<Act. II of 1974), sections 179 and 180, scope of.

The respondent was caryiogon business of mnufactUring fertilizers at Ltidhiana under the name andstYie' of MeSsrs Variader Agro-Cbemical_s (India}- :ind arketcd his proudct through his' age"nt Messrs S1chdeva Enterprises.KapU:rthala. Ori finding the sample collected by a FertiiiZer; Inspector fr9m the said agent on Decernbe~ ti~ 1978-to'be of sub-stand<trd, quiliity the Chief -A.gricultur-al Officer. Kapurtliala filed a .-crimirial com ... plaint being CC No. 156-C of 1980 on December 2·4, 1980 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistfate, K.apurthala against the. two partners .of Messrs SaChdeva Enterprises and th-e Respolld_ent under s. -1 'lA. of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with s. 13(1) (a) of the Fertilizers Control Ordr. 19.57. On. July 20,. 198 l respondent , moved rut application. -before tb_e trial courtraying that he be dischlrged andthe proceedings be

dropped against him on the ground that the KapurthalaCourt Md no territorial Jurisdiction tO try him because he ca; r.ied on .:business of manu facturc of-fertilizers at Ludhiana.

Relyi_ng on the _decision -Or the G_ujarat High. Court in .state of Gujarat v. Agro-Chemicals etc.

0(1980 cr:L. J: p. 5J6), the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the respondent and. dropped the proceedings (Jgainst him. The Criminal Jlevn, Application No. 48 of 1981.filed by the Stat<> of Punjab was allowed by the Additional Se_ssions Judge; Kapurthafa hotdillg. that-in Vie.w of the pro, visions of Section.· 180 of the Code of C:rimina! Procodure, the Kapurthala Court bad jurisdic tion to. try the respondent along with the o'ther coaccused. Thereupon the respondent preferred a revision petition being Cr!.. Miac. No. 1473 M of

1982 "in the High Court >f Punjab and Haryana. A learned Single Judge of the High Court relying on the decision of that Court in Satinder Singh and.

OrS.' vo Staie of Punjab," Cr!. Misc. Appia. No. IISBM/19$1 dated 24·2;1982 which. accepted the view t.akeu by. the Gujarat High Cuurt,. alloWed t:he revision petition and setaside the 4eC1sion Qf. the AdditiQnal Se"ions Judge. Hence the State Appea\ by SpeciaLLeave of the Court.

A Jlwing the appeaJ, t.he Court

840 SUPREME <;, OUR! Rl!'ORTS (1984]3 s.c.R.

J{ELO.: 1. The CoUft in whose jurisdiction sub-standard fertilizer was found to be maketed will hae.the.jurisdiCtiOn to try manufacturer of sub.standafd .feMflizer even if the rn_anufacniring activity is at 3.n entireIY different. pJace. The manufact'uref is. well as te. dealer can be tried at a piace where .the conseqlJ-ences of the manufacturing and selling of sOb standard fertilizer had ensued as envisiged in ss. 179 and L80 of the .Code of Cri.minal Procedure.

{843C-D]

. . . -. .· . . 1 :2._Now ifniaufactu~'ing sub-standard fertilizer is l)y itself an Offence .. and marketing the suhJitaiidard fertilizer is _itself-.a-dis_tioct offence bllt they are So inter connected 'as cau:. e and effect, both can be tried at. Oneor tbe other place. If one_inanufactures'thc sub-standa.i;, d ferfilizer, wherever it is marketed the inter-relation' or' casua:t connection ii or' cause aad effect.

The situa\ion ;._, ill be adequately covered bys;,: 17'9 and '180 of the Code of .Criminal Procedure.

[8430-H]

. .

JnChargs Production, Harydna State Coopt. Supply And Market ing [1ederation Lid. (HAFE IJ) Fertilizer v .. State. of Punjab; Crl: Misc. No. 676.3. M of 1982 decided by the High Court on 9·3·1983 approved,

1 .: 3. \vh.en a samPle o.f _fertilize~ js taken from a. bag Which was io the _same cooditiOn as dCliv.ercby the m3.Dufacturcr and. it Was ln po_ssess.ion ·of a markett'ng agent manufacture .and sale of -sub-standard fertilizer would constitute indiSptitably one . tran$aCtion.·- But this . is predicated upon thC facts which may be disclosed in the trial and proved.

[844DE)

Bhagwan Das Jagdish Chander v. Delhi. Administration [l975]

Sup. s.C:R 30, distinguished.

. ..

. CRIMINAf. APPELLATE J1jRJSDICTJON: Criminal Appeal No .. 247 of 1984.

Appea1 by Special leave from the Judgment apd Order dated the 28th July, 1982 of th.e Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. No. J472-M/82:

 K.C. Dua and S.K. Bagga forllie Appellant.'

Frank Anthony and Suhil Kumar for the Respondent .

. '1.be Jugment of the Curt was delivered. by

DllsAI, J. Special leave granted.

One Nohar Chand; the respondent herein, was carrying on

.~ I

~ \ '

, ...

' '

, ; .

. . . . . b11.5iness of manufacluring fertilisers at Ludhiana under the name , and style of Mis Varinder Agrpc-Chemicals (lndia).

On, e inspe, cwr designated as Fertillscr. Inspector visited the premises of M/s

Sachdeva Enterprises, Kapnrtha[a ('agent' for short) on De, cember , 12, 1978 and obtained a sample of the fertiliser manufactured by Nohar Chand .which was being marketed by the agent. The sample was obtined for the purpose of al)alysis to, ascertain whether it conformed to the prescribed standard: On analysis it was foupd to be sub-standard,. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Kapurthala filed a criminal com plaint being CC. No., 156-C of 19.80 on December24,

1980. in the Court of the Chief Judicial :Magistrate, Kapurthala against the two pariners of M/s Sachdeva Enterprises, one Raj Shetty and respondent Nohar Chand Gupta, the manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser uis 13-A cf the Essential Commodities Act, ' '1955°read, with Section l 2(l}(a), ofthc Fertilisers Control Order,

1957. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charge , again sf all the accused for the afore, mentioned offence:, on July 20, ,

1981 respondent Nohar, Chand iuoved an application before the .

Jearned Magistrate praying thathe, be discharged andthe proceedings be dropped against him on the ground t]Jat the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala had no territoriiil jurisdiction to try him because he carried on business of manufacture of fertilisers at , Ludhiana. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, following the ·

decision of the Gujarat High Court in St'ate , of Gujarat v, Agro- Chem/cals e!c,,(1) discharged the respondent and dropped the, proceedings against him,., The State of Punjab preferred Criminal Revision Application No, 48 of 1981 in the Court C!f the learned Additional Sessfons Judge, Kapurfhala who by his judgment, and order dated February 13, 1982 set aside the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate holding that in view of the provisions contained'in Section

180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court of ihe Chief Judiclal Magistrate, Kapurthala had jurisdiction to try the respon de, nt along with the other co-accused. Thereupon Jhe respondent pteferred a revision p :tition being Criminal Misc,, No. 1473-M of 1982 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A learned Single Judge of the High Court held th'at in view of , the decision in Satinder

Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab<2> which accepted the view"taken , by the Gujarat High Court, the learned , Additional Sessions Judge

was in error in interfering with the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and that the Couri of the Chief Judicial , Magitrate, ,

(!) 19so'criminal LawJournaI 5i6. ,

q)' Cr!. Misc. Applicati9n No. ll58M of 1981 da1ed 24.2.1982 . . . . .

c , .

, . -ii,'

SUPRm.ill coURt iuli>oilts [1984) 3 s.c.tt.

K,.apurthal!i. had no jurisdiction t~ try Nohar Chand, the manufac mrer._ Accllrdingly the revision applicai'O)l was allowed and the

d~1swn of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was. set aside and ' ihe one bythe learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was restored. Hence this appeal by special leave.

 The allegation against the resportdent was that he manufactured sub, standard fertiliser and. through his marketing agents M/s Sachdeva Enterprises, Kapurthala marketed the same. The offence was discl.osed when the Fertiliser ll}spector took a sample of the sul:Jstandard fertiliser from the marketing agents at Kapurthala. It is an admitted position 1#, at the respondent who 'is the manufacturer ·

carries on-his bussiness of manufactuiing fertilisers at Ludhiana. Th~ question posed is : • whether the Court of Chief Judicia! Magistrate, Kapurthala where the l)larketlng agents of sul:J-staudard fertiliser manufactured by the respondent marketed the same, wi)l have. jurisdiction to try .the: respondent; the manufacturer of the sub standard fertiliser along with the marketing agents. · . . , . .

The learned Single Judge of the High Court following the deeision in Satinder Singh's case held ihat the .1nanufacturer•of sub"standard fertiliser cannot be tried where the commodity was being marketed The view taken l:\y the High Court with. respect is wholly untenable in law. But before examining the legal position .··. subsequent devlopn1ertt of law in the sa1ue High Cou'rt on this very point may be .noticed. ·

To begin with, let it be pointed out that the decision.agaist which the present appeal is being heard was quoted bef<;>re another . . learned Single Judgv of the same High Court and as the.learned

Sin°gle Judge had grave doubt abo:J.tthe correctness of the -view taken. by the learned.Judge in this case, he referred the matter for ay.thori, tative pronouncement. to a larger bench ofthe same High Court.

This referred matter : Incharge Production, Haryana State Co- . operative. Supply and Marketitig Fedtration Ltd. (HAFED.) Fertilizer.

v. Swte of Punjab(l) chme up for hearing before a Division _Bench . of the High Court. 1he Division Bencl; t referred to the deci.sion . rendered by the learned S)ngle Judge in this case., and clearly · disapproved it and in terms overruled it, Simultaneously it also.· overruled.the de:ision in Satiiuler Singh's case which the learned Judge had followed in this case. 'It can be safe(y said. that the lirger

.----·~--~

(I) Criminal Misc. No. 6763-M of 19.82 dated 9.3.83.

-::._

I -

r' \ _,

. '

~-.

...

) ) .

PUNJAB v; NOHAR CIIAND (Desai, J.) 843

bench of the High Court has disapproved the view taken by the A learhed Judge in this case.

The respondent, the manufacturer of the sub-standard fertiliser is. to be tried alongwith those who marketed the sub-standard fertiliser manufactured by him as his agents. The question iS whether .B the court where the sub-standard fertiliser i) marketed would have jurisdiction to try the manufacturer of. the sub-standard fertiliser whose. manufacturing activity is at a different plae. This very . argument was posed before the Division Bench ot the High Court.

The High Court after referring to Secti.ons 179 and 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 held that the court where sub-sta.ndard

 C

feiliser was found to be marketed wili have the jurisdiption to try the manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser even if the manufacturing activity is at an entirely different place. The Division Bench held that the manufacturer as well as. the dealer can be tried at .a plac.e where the consequences .of the manufacturing and selling of sub standard fertiliser had ensued as envisaged in Sections 179 and 180 ·.o of the Code of Ciminal Procedure. That in our opinion (appears to be the correct view in law.

Section 179 prnvides that when an act is an offence; by reason of anything which has been <jone and of a consequence which has E ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing bas been done 'or such conse

quence has ensued. Section 180 provides .that where irn act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which wot\ld be an offence if the doer were capable . of committing an offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired " F into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done .

. . . .

Now if manufacturing sub-standard fertiliser is by itself an offence and marketing the sub-standard fertiliser is itself a distinct offence but they are so-inter-connected as cause and eff; ct, .both can be tried at one or the other place. If one manu.factures the substandard fertiliser, wherever it is marketed the inter-relation or casual connection is of cause. and effect.· The situation will be adequately covered by Secs. 179 and 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are in agreement with the later decision of Jhe Division Bench rendered on March 9, 1983 that the court where the sub-standard fertiliser is being marketed will qually have the •

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1984) 3 S.C.R.

A jurisdicil0n to try the manufacturer of sub-standard fertiliser. 1 his is so obvious that any further discussion appears to us to t>e superfluous.

Mr. Frank Amhouy, learned counsel who appeared for the respondent urged that the concurring decision of Alagiriswami, J. in Bhagwandas Jagdish Chander v. Delhi Administration( I) would clearly show that the manuiacture of an adulterated article of food and selling the same c, annot be said to be part and parcel of the same transaction and that unless therefore the complaint shows that the sample of fe.rtiliser was taken from a bag of fertiliser as delivered by the manufacturer, it is. distinctly possible that adulteration may have taken. place on a subsequent occasion and therefore one cannot infer . . ' manufacture of sub-standard fertiliser from it being so marketed when the sample was taken from the marketing agency.

This approach overlooks the fact that the trial is yet to be held. One can envisage two situations. When a sample of fertiliser is taken from a bag which was in the same condition as delivered by the manufacturer and it was in possession of a marketing agent manufacture and sale of sub-standard fertiliser would constitute. indisputably one . transaction. But this is predicated upon the facts which may be disclosed in the trial and proved. In Bhagandas Jagdish (:hander's case, the allegation was that the appellant before the court sold ghee to a vndor which was on analysis found io be adulterated ahd both were jointly tried under ection 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the course of trial, the purchaser of ghee wanted warrantor to be discharged so that he can be examined as a defence witness to prove his own purchase of the offending article. This application was granted and the warrantor was acquitted.

After the acquittal of the warrantor, the learned Magistrate impleaded the manufacturer Mr. Gauri Shanker Prem Narain .under section 20-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. An appeal was preferred by the Municipal Corporation ' of Delhi against the ":cquittal of the warrantor and the other accused.

The High Court maintained the acquittal of Lakshmi Narain but set aside the acqitial of warrantor. That i.s how the matter came up to this Court.· We fail to see how this decision can at all help the respondent in this' case. However, reliance was placed on one observation in the' concurring judgment of Alagiriswami, J. which reads as under :

(!) (1975) Suppl. SCR 30 •

i.,.

t '

' - '

\ _l,.

; I

"It would b.e noticed that while the charge states that . the sample of ghee purchased from Lakshmi Narain was found to be adulterated, there i_s no allegation that the ghee sold by the appellant to Lakshmi Narain was adulterated.

While it may be readily conceded that the common object or common intention or unity of purpose. between the manufacturer, the distributor and the vendor was tq sell the article of fMd sold, it is not said that 1t was to sell the adulteraiedi>rticle of foo.d."

At a later stage, it is observed that 'the validity of th~ charge has (o be decided oo the facts put forward as the prosecution case. If' it is not established against anyone of them that, the article of food manufactured, distributed or sold by him was adulterated that person will be acquitted, not because the charge was not valid or was defective but because there was no proof to substantiate the. charge.

But without that allegation there canuot be said t.o be a unity of purpose or common object or common intention on the part of all of them who manufactur~, distribute or sell the adulterated food.' It was further observed that "the manufacture, distribution and sale Of adulterated ghee would be the same transaciion if it was found to be adulterated at all the three stages. Otherwise it only means that they were all same transaction only in the sense that the common object of all ofthem is the selling of the ghee.'' How the extracted_ observation in any way helps the respondent passes comprehension. Firstly, the question of jurisdiction of the court trying the offender was never raised in that case. l}nd, here the respondent was discharged pn the ground of want of jurisdiction. Secondly, the decision proceeded on the facts of the case as would be evident. from the . extracted passage which recites the charge. That aspect does not

fii:ure in this case. Let it be made clear that no affidavit was filed on • behalf of the respondent in this Court, nor the complaint was read over to us. And the case proceeds on he averments not presently disputed. Therefore in this case we are leftwith the allegations as found in the judgment of the High Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge and it clearly establishes that where the . marketing. agent of the manufacturer of fertiliser which is found to be sub standard is being prosocuted for marketing sub-standard fertiliser . . . ' the manufacturec can be tried with him and the court where the sub standard fetiliser was marketed will have jurisdiction to try them both. ...

. '

._;._

SUPREME COURT REl'ORTS

[1984] 3 S.C.R.

"Therefore the High Court was in error iu setting aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This was the only point in this appeal and as it clearly transpired that the High Court was in error in interfering with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Collrt is quashed and set aside and the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judg<; is restored.

S.R.

Appeal allowe~ ,•

i '

+ -

•• I

STATE OF PUNJAB

NOHAR CHAND

May 17, 1984

D.A. DESAI

AMARiNDRANATH SEN, JJ.

sections 179 and 180

December 2·4, 1980

Essential Commodities Act, 1955

s. 13(1)

Satinder Singh

CoUft

ss. 179

K.C. Dua

S.K. Bagga

Frank Anthony

Suhil Kumar

Nohar Chand

Ludhiana

Sachdeva Enterprises

De, cember , 12, 1978

Nohar Chand

Kapurthala

December24,

1980

Raj Shetty

Nohar Chand Gupta

Essential Commodities Act

Nohar, Chand

State of Punjab

Section

180

Code of Criminal Procedure

High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Swte of Punjab(l

Satiiuler Singh

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Sections 179 and 180

Section 179

Section 180

Code of Criminal Procedure

March 9, 1983

Frank Amhouy

Alagiriswami

Bhagandas Jagdish

Sec. 16

Gauri Shanker Prem Narain

section 20

Municipal Corporation ' of Delhi

Lakshmi Narain