JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is preferred against the Order dated 18-1-1989, by which, the learned C.J.M. framed charge against the petitioners for the offence u/S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Murari Lal Gupta, Food Inspector, inspected the shop of Nand Lal who was having 310 Kilo 580 Gram sugar in the stock. On inspection it was found that Nand Lal was not having licence under the P.F.A. Act, 1954. After obtaining sanction for prosecution a complaint was filed against Nand Lal. 3. The learned C.J.M. started the evidence in the case. Thereafter, on 9-3-87 the learned Magistrate suo moto took cognizance against the petitioner No.2 Sahakari Samiti under the Provisions of Section 319 Cr. P.C. Notice was served on this petitioner Samiti and as nobody appeared in compliance of the notice, the learned Magistrate issued bailable-warrant against the Chairman of the Samiti. The learned Magistrate also framed charge against the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is absolutely no case against the petitioners. Nand Lal who was working as Manager of the Samiti and he was authorised by the D.S.O. vide his Order dated 9-12-1982 (Annx. 4) to sell the commodities and by this Order the Manager of the Sahakari Samiti was empowered. In view of the Order Nand Lal was selling food articles. The statement of Murari Lal Food Inspector was also perused. He does not state that the Chairman Wahid Ahmed was selling the food articles. When he inspected the shop he found Nand Lal was having the stock of sugar and he was not having any licence so a complaint was lodged against him but it is not his case that Chairman Wahid Ahmed was also selling the food articles without licence. I fail to understand how the learned Magistrate found that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and took cognizance u/S. 319 Cr. P.C. I have no hesitation to say that the learned C.J.M, has not applied his mind at all to this case and he has not understood the provisions of Sec. 319 Cr. P.C. and in a arbitrary manner he passed the order taking cognizance against the petitioner. It is very unfortunate that the subordinate Courts act in such irresponsible manner and the petitioners have been unnecessarily summoned in this case. P.C. and in a arbitrary manner he passed the order taking cognizance against the petitioner. It is very unfortunate that the subordinate Courts act in such irresponsible manner and the petitioners have been unnecessarily summoned in this case. There is no case at all for which the petitioners be summoned. 5. As a result, the petition is accepted. The Order of the learned C.J.M. taking cognizance and framing charge against the petitioner is set aside. The proceedings pending against the petitioner are quashed.Petition accepted. *******