Judgment Admit. Heard finally by consent of the counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant is an accused in Summary Criminal Case No.45/2002. Said criminal case was filed by the Drug Inspector of Bhandrara District against the applicant for contravention of sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi) r/w 16 & 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under section 27(b) of the said Act. It appears that the complaint was filed in the year 2002. There was no progress in the hearing of the case till September, 2009. The learned trial Court, therefore, passed the following order:- "This is a very old Summary Case. The complainant has not taken any step and remained absent since long. Hence, this case is hereby dismissed under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accused is acquitted. Date: 30.9.2009 Sd/-Dr. S.R. Jaiswal Chief Judicial Magistrate" 3. The respondent-State of Maharashtra through the Drug Inspector, moved the learned trial Court on 9th October, 2009 for reviewing the order dated 30th September, 2009. The learned trial Court without giving any opportunity to the applicant had, on 26th October, 2009, passed the following order : "No say. Heard. Hence, looking to the circumstances and in the interest of justice, application is allowed. Case is hereby restored by taking the case on today's Board. Issue summons to accused returnable on 30.11.2010 accordingly. Sd/-Dr.S.R. Jaiswal Chief Judicial Magistrate 26.10.2009" 4. The applicant came to know that such an order has been passed by the trial Court only when warrant was issued against him. The summons was never served upon him after the so called review of the earlier order. The applicant has, therefore, moved this Court for quashing the proceedings u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. Ms.Anuradha Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that once an order under section 256 was passed and the applicant was acquitted, the learned trial Court could not have passed any order in the disposed off complaint. It is needless to be stated here that the learned Magistrate had, in fact, become a functus officio after the order of acquittal. That apart, what is necessary to be stated here is that the Magistrate had no powers under the Cr.P.C. to review his own order. The Magistrate failed to take into account the fact that it was final disposal of the case which ended with acquittal of the applicant. That apart, what is necessary to be stated here is that the Magistrate had no powers under the Cr.P.C. to review his own order. The Magistrate failed to take into account the fact that it was final disposal of the case which ended with acquittal of the applicant. It was final judgment in the case. It is really surprising as to how the learned trial Court had without exhibiting any serious concern for the statutory provisions, passed the casual order, upsetting its earlier order of acquittal. In fact, the Drug Inspector himself should have realised his responsibility and should not have filed the misconceived application for reviewing the judgment and order of acquittal. 5. It is seen that on both the occasions, the learned Magistrate was extremely casual in approach and he was not mindful of any statutory provisions. In any event, once an order of acquittal, wrongly or rightly, has been passed, the Magistrate had no power to review his own order. The remedy available to the respondent /Food and Drug Administration was to file an Appeal against the order of acquittal. 6. Mr. A.S. Sonare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the applicant has conceded to the order of the learned Magistrate and that trial of case has begun. Part of the evidence has already been recorded. It is, therefore, contended by Mr Sonare that this Court may not interfere with the order when the applicant has conceded and has participated in further proceedings. In my view, this argument is totally baseless and cannot be accepted. The concession given by the applicant against the statutory provision has no meaning. Criminal cases are to be decided in accordance with law and not in accordance with the concession given by the parties. In my view, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court restoring the complaint and issuing summons to the applicant and all further proceedings in said case need to be quashed. At the same time, the respondent-Food and Drug Administration will be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned order dated 26.10.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Summary Criminal Case No.45/2002 restoring the said Criminal case on record and issuing summons to the applicant is set aside. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned order dated 26.10.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Summary Criminal Case No.45/2002 restoring the said Criminal case on record and issuing summons to the applicant is set aside. (ii) All further proceedings taken in the said Summary Criminal Case No.45/2002 also shall stand quashed. (iii) Bail bonds of the applicant shall stand cancelled. (iv) The order dated 30th September, 2009 stands restored. Criminal Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.