Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 958 of 2004 Revisionist :- Neeraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Punit Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
List has been revised. None appeared on behalf of revisionist.
I have heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
In the case of Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that after admission of criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing the same in default and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default but it has to be decided on merit, so, this revision is decided according to its merit.
This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2004 passed by A.C.J.M.-I, Banda in Case No. 30/IX/2004 under Section 7/16 The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act-1954 (hereinafter referred as Act) State Versus Neeraj Kumar and Another.
Revisionist has taken ground in this revision that learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order dated 06.01.2004 in most cursory and mechanical manner without application of its mind, and therefore, it is not the order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. That learned Magistrate has completely failed to look into the fact that there was no valid sanction by the competent authority to launch the prosecution against the revisionist as comtemplated in Section 20 of the Act. That sanction accorded by CMO, Banda to launch the prosecution against the revisionist in cyclostyle proforma only by filling the blanks, which is not permissible under law and could not be said to be a valid sanction. That complainant stated that at the time of inspection of the Food Inspector, revisionist was selling Bharat Gutka manufactured by M/s Prayag Industries Banda and revisionist was never engaged in trading and selling of aforesaid Gutka neither he was any concern with Gutka manufacturers. That revisionist is the proprietor of M/s Sanjay Kirana Store who is engaged in selling of Kirana articles. That revisionist has never put his signature on any document as alleged in the complaint and all these fake and bogus proceedings has been conducted by opposite party no. 2 only to harass the revisionist as the revisionist has failed to fulfill his illegal demands. That proceedings right from the sampling are wholly malicious, malafide and complaint is totally vaxatious, hence proceedings of the above said case as well as order dated 06.01.2004 may be quashed.
Having heard learned A.G.A. and perusal of the record shows that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order of court below. Court below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction, and after full appreciation of fact, summoned the revisionist, Neeraj Kumar. Hence, revision is being devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
On above terms, criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
A copy of this order be communicated to the court below for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Vibha Singh