Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UDEY HANS SARDANA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


UDEY HANS SARDANA v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors - CRM-M-58285-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 186 (18 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CRL. MISC. NO.58285-M of 2003

DATE OF DECISION:18.1.2006

Udey Hans Sardana

........PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

.........RESPONDENT

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
PRESENT: Mr Ashish Kapoor, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr Rameshwar Malik, Addl. AG, Haryana.

-----

ORDER:

This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.315 dated 3.9.2001, registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, under sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act) and sections 269, 272 and 420 IPC, alleging that the sample taken from the petitioner was not found as per specification by the Public Analyst. It is stated in the petition that prior to lodging of the FIR, complaint Annexure P- 2 had already been filed, wherein the petitioner stood summoned vide order dated 23.8.2001, Annexure P-3. It was submitted that since special law has been enacted on the subject under the provisions of the Act, laying down special procedure, the case could not be registered by the police on allegation, which clearly fall under the provisions of the Act. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nilratan Sircar vs.

Lakshmi Narain Ram Niwas, AIR 1965 SC 1 and also judgments reported in Jogendra Lal Saha vs. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 1148; Rajeev Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 846 and Hira Lal Bhartiya and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1977(1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases (old judgments) 120.

Learned counsel for the State is unable to dispute the applicability of the said judgments to the present case.

Accordingly, proceedings in the FIR case are quashed. It is, however, made clear that proceedings in the complaint case can continue.

The petition is disposed of.

January 18, 2006 ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

sanjeev JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.