Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal writ petitions filed by the petitioners, who were accused of possessing Gutka for sale, which was alleged to be an offence under Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioners, Dilipsinh s/o Ramsinh Bhatia (in Writ Petition No.76/2010) and Anilkumar s/o Hukumchand Chaudhari and Sunilkumar s/o Hukumchand Chaudhari (in Writ Petition No.77/2010), were charged with possession of Gutka for sale. The core legal issue was whether such possession constitutes an offence under Section 273 IPC. The petitioners argued that Gutka is not an article of food as defined under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and therefore cannot be considered adulterated food under Section 273 IPC. The State, represented by the learned A.P.Ps., opposed the petitions. The court, after hearing both sides, analyzed the definition of 'food' under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and concluded that Gutka, being a tobacco product, does not fall within that definition. Consequently, the court held that possession of Gutka for sale does not constitute an offence under Section 273 IPC. The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, allowing the writ petitions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Offence under Section 273 IPC - Adulteration of Food - Possession of Gutka for Sale - Gutka is not an article of food as defined under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and therefore its possession for sale does not attract Section 273 IPC - Held that the proceedings are quashed (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether possession of Gutka for sale constitutes an offence punishable under Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
Law Points
- Possession of Gutka for sale does not constitute an offence under Section 273 IPC
- Gutka is not an article of food as defined in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954
- Section 273 IPC requires adulteration of an article of food
- Gutka is a tobacco product not covered by the definition of food
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (02) 5
Criminal Writ Petition No.76 of 2010 and Criminal Writ Petition No.77 of 2010
Shri C.R. Deshpande with Rashmi Hardas for petitioners; Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondent in WP 76/2010; Smt. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent in WP 77/2010
Dilipsinh s/o Ramsinh Bhatia (in WP 76/2010); Anilkumar s/o Hukumchand Chaudhari and Sunilkumar s/o Hukumchand Chaudhari (in WP 77/2010)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petitions challenging the initiation of proceedings under Section 273 IPC for possession of Gutka for sale.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were accused of possessing Gutka for sale, which was alleged to be an offence under Section 273 IPC.
Issues
Whether possession of Gutka for sale constitutes an offence under Section 273 IPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that Gutka is not an article of food as defined under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and therefore cannot be considered adulterated food under Section 273 IPC.
State opposed the petitions, arguing that possession of Gutka for sale is punishable under Section 273 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi
Possession of Gutka for sale does not constitute an offence under Section 273 IPC because Gutka is not an article of food as defined under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and therefore cannot be considered adulterated food under Section 273 IPC.
Judgment Excerpts
These two writ petitions raise identical question of facts and law, namely, whether possession of Gutka for sale constitutes offence punishable under Section 273 of I.P.C.
Heard Shri C.R. Deshpande, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned A.P.Ps. Shri K.M.Suryawanshi and Smt. B.R.Khekale for the Respondent State.
After hearing both sides, I am of the opinion that Gutka is not an article of food as defined in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Therefore, possession of Gutka for sale cannot be said to be an offence punishable under Section 273 of I.P.C.
Hence, these writ petitions are allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed criminal writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the initiation of proceedings under Section 273 IPC for possession of Gutka for sale. The court heard both sides and delivered the judgment on February 26, 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 273
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:
