Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, directors and a company, challenged the judgment and order dated 3rd April 2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Criminal Revision Application No. 36 of 2014, which remanded the criminal complaint to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli for fresh decision. The complaint was filed by the Food Inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The petitioners contended that the complaint was filed without valid sanction under Section 20 of the Act, which is a condition precedent. The revisional court remanded the matter without addressing this issue. The High Court held that the revisional court ought to have considered the sanction issue before remanding, as lack of sanction goes to the root of maintainability. Consequently, the High Court quashed the remand order and directed the trial court to decide the complaint afresh, considering the sanction issue. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Remand - Section 397, 401 CrPC - Revisional court's power to remand - The revisional court remanded the complaint for fresh decision without addressing the issue of lack of valid sanction under Section 20 of the PFA Act. Held that the revisional court ought to have considered the sanction issue before remanding, as lack of sanction goes to the root of maintainability. (Paras 1-7)
B) Prevention of Food Adulteration - Sanction - Section 20 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Condition precedent for filing complaint - The Food Inspector filed complaint without valid sanction from the competent authority. Held that sanction under Section 20 is a condition precedent and without it the complaint is not maintainable. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional court was justified in remanding the complaint for fresh decision without considering the issue of lack of valid sanction under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the revisional court's order dated 3rd April 2018, and directed the trial court to decide the complaint afresh, considering the issue of sanction under Section 20 of the PFA Act.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 20 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
- 1954 is a condition precedent for filing complaint
- Lack of sanction renders complaint not maintainable
- Revisional court cannot remand complaint for fresh decision without addressing sanction issue
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 120
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2078 of 2018
Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam for the petitioners, Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for Respondent No. 2-State
Krishnagopal Raghunathprasad Maheshwari and others
The Food Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Sangli and State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging revisional court's order remanding complaint for fresh decision.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the revisional court's order remanding the complaint.
Filing Reason
The revisional court remanded the complaint without considering the issue of lack of valid sanction under Section 20 of the PFA Act.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had dismissed the complaint? (Not explicitly stated, but revisional court remanded for fresh decision).
Issues
Whether the revisional court was justified in remanding the complaint for fresh decision without considering the issue of lack of valid sanction under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the complaint was filed without valid sanction under Section 20 of the PFA Act, which is a condition precedent, and the revisional court erred in remanding without addressing this issue.
Ratio Decidendi
Sanction under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is a condition precedent for filing a complaint; without it, the complaint is not maintainable. The revisional court ought to have considered this issue before remanding the complaint for fresh decision.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 3rd April 2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 36 of 2014, only to the extent of remanding criminal complaint to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli for fresh decision.
The revisional court ought to have considered the issue of sanction under Section 20 of the PFA Act before remanding the complaint.
Procedural History
The Food Inspector filed a complaint under the PFA Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint? (Not clear). The respondent filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, who remanded the complaint for fresh decision. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition challenging the remand order.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 20
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 397, Section 401
