High Court
Legal Reasoning
7 Cri. W.P. 495-2025.odtjudgments in the cases of Inox Air Products Limited (supra) andLalankumar Singh and others (supra), this Court need notdiscuss those judgments.11.So far as judgments cited by the learned A.P.P. areconcerned, she relied upon the judgment in the case of State ofGujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20SCC 539. In the said case, a cognizance was taken of a policereport and summons was issued to the accused. It is held that,strict standard of proof required for satisfaction of the learnedMagistrate is not required. Such satisfaction can be based onlyon prima facie evidence before issuing summons to the accused.In the said case, summons was issued by considering primafacie evidence and it is in that view the Court held that, thelearned Magistrate need not explicitly state the reasons for hissatisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for proceedingagainst the accused. In the said case, there was investigationreport and statement of one witness recorded under Section 161were on record. Thus, on facts this Court finds that the said caseis not applicable. 7 of 10 8 Cri. W.P. 495-2025.odt12.In the case of Amarnath Baijnath Gupta and another Vs.Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. and another reported in 2008 SCCOnline Bom 1194, there was a complaint based on eightcheques issued by the accused in favour of complainant towardsdischarge of alleged liability. The learned J.M.F.C. issued noticeon recording verification statement. A revision application wasfiled. The said came to be dismissed. It was argued by thepetitioners therein that, on reading the plain averments in thecomplaint, the process could not have been issued. There theaverments in terms of Section 141 of the NegotiableInstruments Act were not made in the complaint. This Courtconsidered Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The Court consideredthat, the complainant should not suffer because of failure oflearned Magistrate in performing his duty under Section 200 ofthe Cr.P.C. In that view, the order of issuance of process was setaside and consequently the judgment of the learned AdditionalSessions Judge also came to be quashed and set aside. However,the matter was remanded back to the learned Trial Court forrecording the statement of the complainant under Section 200of the Cr.P.C. and to pass fresh order. 8 of 10 9 Cri. W.P. 495-2025.odt13.In the case of Sulochana Ravindrakumar Bhandari andanother Vs. K. Rama Rao and another reported in 1981 Bom.C.R. 242, this Court was considering Sections 145, 146 of theCr.P.C. and Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative SocietiesAct. It is held that the powers under Section 482 are to besparingly exercised in proper cases. The Court is not bound tointerfere in discretionary jurisdiction. 14.There is no dispute about the propositions in thejudgments relied upon by the learned A.P.P.15.In the present case, as to whether it is necessary for thelearned Magistrate to record verification statements of witnessesor to conduct any enquiry before issuance of process isquestioned. Considering the facts of the present case, theaverments in the complaint and the order passed by the learnedTrial Court, it is clear that the judgments relied upon by thepetitioner are squarely applicable. The order passed by thelearned Trial Court is already reproduced herein. From theorder it is clearly seen that, the order does not reflect anyconsideration by the Court. Thus, the order is totally lacking in 9 of 10
Arguments
1 Cri. W.P. 495-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 495 OF 2025Mr. Ram Bharat,Age : about 44 years,Occupation : Managing Director ofPatanjali Food Limited,Residing at House No. 90,Vidyavihar Colony, Kankhal,Haridwar, Uttarakhand – 249 408... PetitionerVersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through the Deputy Director,Industrial Safety & Health, Ahmednagar. .. RespondentMr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate h/f Mr. Akshay Kulkarni, Mr.Amit Yadkikar, Ms. Aarohee Gursale, Advocates for thePetitioner.Smt. M. N. Ghanekar, APP for Respondent/State. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.Date on which reserved for order : 14th July, 2025.Date on which order pronounced : 01st August, 2025. FINAL ORDER :- .Heard both the parties. Taken up for final disposal byconsent of the parties.2.The petitioner by way of filing this petition has 1 of 10 2 Cri. W.P. 495-2025.odtapproached this Court for quashing and setting aside orderdated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (3rd Court),Newasa thereby issuing process against the petitioner in S.C.C.No. 450/2024.3.The facts in short are that, the petitioner is a companyengaged in the business of dairy products having one factory atNewasa. In the said factory, the petitioner manufactures Ghee,Butter, Butter milk, Milk powder, Curd etc. The DeputyDirector, Industrial Safety and Health, Ahmednagar had been tothe factory at Newasa on 29.02.2024 for inspection. Heobserved that, the factory building, processes and machinery labare not in conformity with the approved plans. Fresh certificateof stability in form 1-A is not obtained from competent personevery five years. The pressure vessels and pressure plants werenot examined by the competent person externally once in everysix months. The lifting machines and lifting tools not tested andall parts were not thoroughly examined by the competentperson once in every twelve months and safety audit of thefactory not carried out externally once in two years byrecognized safety auditor. It is thus observed that there is 2 of 10 3 Cri. W.P. 495-2025.odtviolation of Rule 4 (2), Rule 3A (1), Rule 65 (4) (a), Rule 64 (1)of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1948 and Rule 3 (B) of theMaharashtra Factories (Safety Audit) Rules, 2014. The DeputyDirector on the basis of his observations filed a complaint S.T.C.No. 450/2024 for violation of above stated provisions on27.05.2024. The learned Magistrate after registration of thecomplaint issued process by order dated 05.09.2024. Thepetitioner is thus before this Court.4.The learned advocate Mr. Chatterji for the petitionervehemently submits that, order of issuance of process does notshow any application of mind and is issued mechanically. Herelies upon few judgments which will be considered in the laterpart of the judgment.5.The learned A.P.P. for State vehemently argued that, thecomplaint is lodged on a complaint by the competent authority.An order may appear to be cryptic, however, it cannot be saidthat it is without application of mind. She also relies upon fewjudgments. The complainant is a gazetted officer who is dulyempowered by the State and is also a public servant. She relies 3 of 10 4 Cri. W.P. 495-2025.odtupon Sections 7 and 9 of the Act to show the powers of theInspector under the Act. The complaint is lodged only afterinspection was done. In view of Section 105 of the FactoriesAct, cognizance can be taken. The said complaint is not filed asa private common complaint and therefore, there is no need torecord verification. She further submits that, before filing thecomplaint, a sanction is duly obtained from the authority.Considering all this, she prays for rejection of the petition.6.This Court has gone through the order which reads asunder :“Issue process against accused for the off puni. u/s 92 ofFactories Act. 05.09.2024.”7. As rightly submitted that the order is cryptic, no reasonsare given reflecting application of mind. However, thesubmission of the petitioner needs to be considered in view ofsubmission by the learned A.P.P. that the present complaint isfiled by a person duly authorized to file a complaint havingpower under the Factories Act. In such circumstances, as towhether it is necessary for the learned Magistrate to record 4 of 10 5 Cri. W.P. 495-2025.odtverification statements of witnesses or to conduct any enquirybefore issuance of process.8.The learned advocate for the petitioner relied uponfollowing judgments :(i)JM Laboratories and others Vs. State of AndhraPradesh and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnlineSC 208.(ii)Inox Air Products Limited Now Known As InoxAir Products Private Limited and Another Vs. State ofAndhra Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online SC209.(iii)Lalankumar Singh and others Vs. State ofMaharashtra reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1383.9.In the case of JM Laboratories and others (supra), a latestjudgment, by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Drug Inspector filed acomplaint in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. under Section 32 ofthe Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In that case, a sample of drugwas analyzed and was found to be not of standard quality andcomplaint was lodged. The learned Trial Court issued summonsto the accused persons. The petition was filed under Section 5 of 10 6 Cri. W.P. 495-2025.odt482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of thecriminal proceedings. The High Court dismissed the criminalpetition and thus, the appeal was preferred in the Hon’ble ApexCourt. The Hon’ble Apex Court did not find it necessary toconsider all the submissions made by the appellants andexamined the order issuing summons. The Hon’ble Apex Courtthereafter considered the judgment in the case of Inox AirProducts Limited Now Known As Inox Air Products PrivateLimited and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in SLP (Crl.)No. 2345/2024. The Hon’ble Apex Court further considered thejudgment in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special JudicialMagistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749. A case ofLalankumar Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2022SCC Online SC 1383 was also considered. Considering allthese, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, when no reasons areassigned by the learned Magistrate in the order and when orderwas totally a non-speaking one, the said order need to bequashed and set aside and set aside the judgment of the HighCourt.10.In view of the above judgment which is based on the 6 of 10
Decision
10 Cri. W.P. 495-2025.odtshowing application of mind. It is clear that, the said ordercannot be sustained in the eyes of law. This Court has nohesitation in allowing the writ petition.16.In view of the above, criminal writ petition stands allowedin terms of prayer clause (B). The impugned order dated05.09.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (3rd Court), Newasais quashed and set aside.17.Criminal writ petition stands disposed of. ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B. 10 of 10