CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Rupesh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 2 August 2011 · Citation: (2011) 4 Crimes 412

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bala Krishna Narayana, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Section 16, 7
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Application No. 23515 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 345 words

Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G. A. for the State, Since the facts of the case are not in dispute this application is being disposed of finality with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties at this stage.

2.

It is undisputed that the date on which the impugned Complaint against the applicant was filed the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 had been enforced and hence the complaint filed against the applicants by opposite party No. 2 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not maintainable. It is further not in dispute that the applicants'' premises was raided on 25/4/2011 and the complaint was filed against them on 27.6.2011 u/s 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the Court of A.C. J.M., 1st Mirzapur and cognizance was taken by the court below vide order dated 27.6.2011.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the order by which the court below has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned the applicants is an absolutely cryptic and non-speaking order which does not reflect at all any application of mind by the Court to the facts of the case and relevant provisions of law and such the same cannot be sustained.

4.

Learned A. G. A. does not dispute the aforesaid legal and factual aspects of the matter.

5.

After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I find that the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants have substance and the same are liable to be accepted. The applicants'' premises was raided on 25/4/2011. On that date The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 stood enforced and as such the applicant could be prosecuted only under the provisions of The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

6.

For the aforesaid reasons, this application is allowed, the summoning order dated 27/6/ 2011 is quashed with the liberty to the respondents to proceed against the revisionist under the provisions of The Food Safely and Standards Act, 2006.