Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36332 of 2019 Applicant :- Dildar Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.8.2019 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Hathras in Criminal Revision No.09 of 2018, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed affirming the order dated 10.1.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in complaint case No.3514 of 2006, under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food and Adulteration Act, 1954, P.S. Sasni, District Hathras, whereby the application for discharge filed by the accused-applicant was dismissed.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is mainly the owner of the shop and has nothing to do with the present case as initially one Chhinga was summoned and after his death summoning order has been issued against the applicant and the applicant is liable to be discharged. Against that order revision was filed, which too was dismissed.
Both the courts below has rejected the discharge application of the applicant on the ground that the accused-applicant was summoned vide order dated 8.4.2016 and in pursuance to the summoning order accused-applicant applied for his bail and he was enlarged on bail, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused- applicant was wrongly summoned.
Further contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the sample of the milk was taken from Chhinga, who is co-accused, therefore, summoning against the applicant is not at all permissible even the charge has not been framed against the applicant.
Both the courts below has recorded the finding that the evidence has already been concluded and the trial is pending since 2006, therefore, there is no justification to discharge the accused-applicant at this stage. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.
The application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, considering the fact that the trial is pending since 2006, trial court is directed to conclude the matter, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 T. Sinha