Double cognizance on successive complaints is impermissible when complaint procedure cannot borrow supplementary-report powers.

Cognizance of the same offence could not be taken twice on successive complaints under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, where the first complaint had already led to cognizance for the same incident. The complaint-case procedure under Sections 200, 202 and 204 CrPC could not be converted into a police-investigation mechanism by importing Section 173(8) CrPC to justify a later complaint against additional accused. Once the accused invoked Section 13(2) and the Central Food Laboratory report superseded the public analyst report, a fresh complaint founded on the superseded report was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cognizance of the same offence could be taken a second time on a subsequent complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; (ii) Whether the procedure of a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be imported into a complaint case to justify a second complaint against additional accused persons; (iii) Whether the second complaint remained maintainable after the public analyst report stood superseded by the Central Food Laboratory report.

Issue (i): Whether cognizance of the same offence could be taken a second time on a subsequent complaint under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Analysis: Cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be taken only once on a complaint. Where the first complaint had already resulted in cognizance for the same incident and offence, a second complaint on the same facts could not be entertained for taking cognizance again against additional accused persons. Any further arraignment of persons, if otherwise justified by evidence, could arise in the course of trial under the appropriate procedural provision and not through a fresh cognizance on a second complaint.

Conclusion: The second cognizance was impermissible and the second complaint was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the procedure of a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be imported into a complaint case to justify a second complaint against additional accused persons.

Analysis: The procedure for police investigation and supplementary report is distinct from the procedure governing complaint cases. A complaint case must proceed under Sections 200, 202 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and cannot be amalgamated with the police-case mechanism under Section 173(8). The earlier complaint already named the manufacturer and other concerned persons, and the attempt to treat the later complaint as a supplementary complaint was legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: Section 173(8) could not be invoked to sustain the second complaint in a complaint-case proceeding.

Issue (iii): Whether the second complaint remained maintainable after the public analyst report stood superseded by the Central Food Laboratory report.

Analysis: Once the accused exercised the statutory right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Central Food Laboratory report was obtained, that report superseded the public analyst report. A sanction and complaint founded on the earlier public analyst report, after supersession, could not form a valid basis for fresh cognizance. The delayed second complaint therefore caused prejudice and became non-est in substance.

Conclusion: The second complaint was vitiated and could not be sustained after supersession of the public analyst report.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings founded on the later complaint were quashed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the petitions succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Cognizance of the same offence cannot be taken twice on successive complaints, and the police-case device of a supplementary report cannot be transplanted into a complaint case; once the statutory laboratory report supersedes the public analyst report, a fresh complaint based on the superseded report is not maintainable.

---