Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6285 of 2021 Applicant :- Sanjeev Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Birendra Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging Summoning Order dated 09.07.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Banda, Order dated 11.01.2021 whereby bailable warrant has been issued against applicant by court below as well as entire proceedings of Special Trial/Complaint No. 17 of 2015 (State Vs. Sanjeev) under Sections 52 (i) 58 and 59 (iii) of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, P.S.-Karvi, District-Chitrakoot, now pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1. Banda.
4. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned complaint case. Allegations made in the complaint are false and concocted. It is next contended that applicant is simply a shopkeeper and disputed product was not manufactured by applicant. He further contends that in respect of alleged incident, no witness has been examined as contemplated under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. However, Magistrate has proceeded to summon applicant by means of summoning order dated 09.07.2015, which is cryptic in nature. Consequently, summoning order dated 09.07.2015 passed by court below as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned complaint case are liable to be quashed by this Court. t
5. Per Contra, learned A.G.A has opposed present application. He submits that Complaint dated 09.07.2015 was filed by complainant opposite party-2, Sri Vinay Kumar Chaturvedi, Chief Food Safety Officer under Food Safety and Standard Act 2006. He further contends that under the proviso to Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., no witness required to be examined in case complaint is filed by Public Servant. As such neither complainant nor witness was examined. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. submits that summoning order dated 09.07.2015 passed by court below, after examining the veracity of the allegations made in complain, is perfectly just and legal. As such, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by Court below in passing summoning order dated 09.07.2015. Learned A.G.A. has invited attention of Court to paragraph 37 of the judgement of Apex Court in Nupur Talwar Vs. C.B.I. and another, (2012) 11 SCC 465 wherein following has been observed:
" 37. The criterion which needs to be kept in mind by a Magistrate issuing process, have been repeatedly delineated by this Court. I shall therefore, first examine the declared position of law on the subject. Reference in this behalf may be made to the decision rendered by this Court inCahndra Deo vs. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and Anr., AIR 1963 SC 1430, wherein it was observed as under "(8) Coming to the second ground, we have no hesitation is holding that the test propounded by the learned single judge of the High Court is wholly wrong. For determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. A number of decisions were cited at the bar in which the question of the scope of the enquiry under Section 202 has been considered. Amongst those decisions are :Parmanand Brahmachari v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Pat 20; Radha Kishun Sao v. S.K. Misra, AIR 1949 Pat 36; Ramkisto Sahu v. State of Bihar, AIR 1952 Pat 125; Emperor v.
J.A. Finan, AIR 1931 Bom 524 andBaidya Nath Singh v. Muspratt, ILR 14 Cal 141. In all these cases, it has been held that the object of the provisions of Section 202 is to enable the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether process should be issued or not and to remove from his mind any hesitation that he may have felt upon the mere perusal of the complaint and the consideration of the complainant's evidence on oath. The courts have also pointed out in these cases that what the Magistrate has to see is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations of the complainant and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction.The learned Judges in some of these cases have been at pains to observe that an enquiry under Section 202 is not to be likened to a trial which can only take place after process is issued, and that there can be only one trial. No doubt, as stated in sub-section (1) of Section 202 itself, the object of the enquiry is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint, but the Magistrate making the enquiry has to do this only with reference to the intrinsic quality of the statements made before him at the enquiry which would naturally mean the complaint itself, the statement on oath made by the complainant and the statements made before him by persons examined at the instance of the complainant."
6. In view of above, learned A.G.A. submits that no illegally or perversity has been committed by court below in passing summoning order against applicant. It is thus urged that no interference is warranted in present case. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A contends that present application is liable to be dismissed.
7. When confronted with aforesaid, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
8. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of applicants, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court cannot appraise or appreciate evidence to record a finding one way or other. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
9. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, present application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.9.2021 YK