Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2387 (ALL)

V. S. Mittal v. State Of U. P.

2016-07-11

PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J. 1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist for setting aside the order dated 06.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 2185 of 2011-State Vs. Naresh Jain and others, whereby the revisionist has been summoned under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is the manufacturer of Deep Classic Mild Fat, which is a proprietary food and Rule 37-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 defines the proprietary food and the proprietary food means a food which has not been standardized under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has summoned the revisionist in a mechanical manner without any application of mind to the facts of the case and the material available on record. It is next submitted that this is not a chalani report and the impugned order is a cyclostyled/typed one. Simply a date has been filled up in the order dated 6.8.2011. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of U.P., 1991 JIC 333 and also a decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, decided on 4.11.1997. 5. I have perused the record which clearly shows that a complaint was filed by Sri Chandrakant Bajpayee, Food Inspector, District Jhansi and a report was submitted by the Public Analyst U.P. Lucknow in which it has been categorically mentioned that "the sample contains less amount of milk Fat and more amount of other edible fat. Manufacturer has declared as it is not Ghee & tastier than Deshi Ghee, which is violation of Rule 37-D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Hence the sample is misbranded." The complaint has been filed by the Food Inspector, District Jhansi before the learned Magistrate which has been registered and after considering the material available on record, cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter the accused Naresh has been summoned by the court concerned through summons. 6. Hence the sample is misbranded." The complaint has been filed by the Food Inspector, District Jhansi before the learned Magistrate which has been registered and after considering the material available on record, cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter the accused Naresh has been summoned by the court concerned through summons. 6. Moreover, the accused-revisionist has been summoned through summons and the case is at the stage of appearance of the accused persons. The order sheet dated 21.9.2011 of the concerned Magistrate reveals that the bail application of the accused Naresh has been allowed. 7. So far as the non-application of judicial mind by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Jhansi is concerned, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance upon the complaint filed by the Food Inspector and passed the impugned order after applying complete judicial mind. 8. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the revisionist are based on different facts and do not apply in the present case. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order 6.8.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate suffers from no illegality or infirmity. No interference is warranted by this Court at this stage. The revision sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.