✦ High Court of India · 04 Dec 2025

Counsel for Respondent(s) vs Saurabh Misra

Case Details High Court of India · 04 Dec 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

04 Dec 2025

Bench

SAURABH LAVANIA

Length

1,223 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §245(2)Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Badrul Hasan, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:- "(1) To issue writ of Certiorari and/or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order quashing the Summoning order dated 18.04.2012, passed in Crl. Case No. 1431/2008, U/S 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, titled as State of U.P-Vs- Pradeep Kumar and others, pending in the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Barabanki, Police Station: - Jahangirabad, District-Barabanki which is marked as Annexure No.1 (ii) To issue writ of Certiorari and/or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order quashing the Order dated 02.08.2017 (Order rejecting Discharge Application), passed in Crl. Case No. 1431/2008 U/S 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, titled as State of U.P-Vs- Pradeep Kumar and others, pending in the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Barabanki, Police Station: -Jahangirabad, District-Barabanki which is marked as Annexure No. 2 iii) To issue writ of Certiorari and/or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order quashing the Order dated 09.01.2019 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge- III, Barabanki, (Order dismissing the revisions), passed in Crl. Revision Case no. 144/2017 which was filed against Order dated 02.08.2017 (Order rejecting Discharge Application), passed in Crl. Case No. 1431/2008 U/S 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, titled as State of U.P-Vs- Pradeep Kumar and others, which is marked as Annexure No. 3 (iv) To Quash the entire proceedings of Crl. Case No. 1431/2008, U/S 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, titled as State of U.P-Vs- Pradeep Kumar and others, pending in the Court of Ld. Additional Chief 2 CRLP No. 4913 of 2019 Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Barabanki, Police Station: - Jahangirabad, District-Barabanki with respect to the petitioners."

3. Vide impugned order dated 02.08.2017 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Barabanki, who summoned the petitioners to face the trial, rejected the application seeking discharge filed by the petitioners in terms of Section 245(2) CrPC. The impugned order dated 02.08.2017 reads as under:- "रा(cid:269)य बनाम (cid:352)दीप कु मार आिद पुकार कराई गई अिभयु(cid:472) (cid:352)दीप कु मार (cid:498)ि(cid:262)गत (cid:628)प से उपि(cid:293)थत है जब िक अिभयु(cid:472) राजी सुरेश च(cid:281)(cid:349) जायसवाल व पीयुष सरीन की हािजरी माफी (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत जो के वल आज के िलए (cid:293)वीकार की जाती है। प(cid:347)ावली (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) अ(cid:281)तग(cid:259)त धारा 245(2) द०(cid:352)०सं० 08/07/2015 िन(cid:293)तार(cid:276)या हेतु िनयत है। उ(cid:472) (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) (cid:352)ाथ(cid:515)गण सुरेश च(cid:281)(cid:349) जायसवाल व पीयुष सरीन के (cid:497)ारा िदया गया। सं(cid:87)ेप म(cid:517) (cid:352)ाथ(cid:515)गण का कथनप है िक उपरो(cid:472) वाद म(cid:517) खदय िवभाग (cid:497)ारा नमूना एक(cid:347) करने के प(cid:499)ात एफ०एस०एल (cid:497)ारा उसका िव(cid:501)ेषण िकया गया था। प(cid:347)ावली पर ऐसा कोई सा(cid:296)य उपल(cid:284)ध नह(cid:514) है यह िन(cid:292)कष(cid:259) िनकाला जा सके िक अिभयु(cid:472)गण घारा 7/16 खा(cid:495) अपिम(cid:361)ण िनवारण अिधिनयम के तहत दोषी ह(cid:523)। यह िक िनमा(cid:259)ता (cid:497)ारा जो लेबल खा(cid:495) साम(cid:334)ी पर लगाया गया है उसी के अनु(cid:628)प खा(cid:495) साम(cid:334)ी पाई गई है इसम(cid:517) िकसी (cid:352)कार के िनयम का उ(cid:289)लं(cid:265)न नही पाया गया िव(cid:501)ेषक की आ(cid:263)या के अनुसार माल मानक के अनु(cid:628)प् है िकसी (cid:352)कार का अपराध पिरलि(cid:87)त नही होता है। अिभयु(cid:472)गण को उ(cid:281)मोिचत करने की मां की गई है। रा(cid:269)य की तरफ से काई िलिखत आपि(cid:485) नह(cid:514) की गई। पर(cid:281)तु ममा(cid:259)ि(cid:263)क आपि(cid:485) िवभागीय अिधकािरय(cid:523) (cid:497)ारा की गई। उभय प(cid:87) को सुना तथा प(cid:347)ावली का स(cid:286)यक पिरशीलन िकया। प(cid:347)ावली पर जनिव(cid:501)ेषक की आ(cid:263)या उपल(cid:284)ध है िजसम(cid:517) इस त(cid:278)य का उ(cid:289)लेख है िक खा(cid:495) अपिमि(cid:361)त िनवारण अिधिनयम 1955 के िनयम 32 के अनुसार पैके ट पर पैिकग ितिथ बैच न(cid:286)बर तथा बे(cid:293)ट िबफोर घोिषत नह(cid:514) है। उपरो(cid:472) ि(cid:293)थित म(cid:517) (cid:352)ाथ(cid:515)गण के (cid:497)ारा उ(cid:281)ह(cid:517) उ(cid:281)मोिचत िकये जाने हेतु (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत िकया गया (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) िदनांिकत 8/7/2015 (cid:293)वीकार िकये जाने यो(cid:264)य नह(cid:514) है। तदनुसार (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) अ(cid:281)तग(cid:259)त धारा 245 (2) द०(cid:352)०सं० िदनांिकत 08/07/2015 िनर(cid:293)त िकया जाता है। प(cid:347)ावली वा(cid:293)ते िवरिचत िकये जाने आरोप िदनांक 23/8/2018 को पेश हो।

5. In regard regard to the impugned order, it is stated that it is non speaking and unreasoned order and therefore the order ought to have been interfered by the, IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki, (in short 'Revisional Court') but the Revisional Court has declined to interfere in the order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the Magistrate vide its order dated 09.01.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 144 of 2017.

6. For causing interference in the impugned order(s) dated 02.08.2017 and 09.01.2019, the counsel for the petitioners submitted as under:- i. The revisional Court while dismissing the revision vide impugned order dated 09.01.2019 has failed to consider the pronouncements placed before it in its true spirit as perusal of the impugned order would indicate that revisional court has not observed anything in the impugned order after considering the relevant paragraphs of the judgement placed before it. ii. The revisional Court while passing the impugned order has also not considered the relevant statutory provisions including Section 17 of the 3 CRLP No. 4913 of 2019 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'Act of 1954'). iii. The Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court failed to consider the story indicated in the complaint case according to which some sachets of Yogi Royal Suandhit Pan Samagri Chandi Vark Yukt, Pan Masala was purchased from the street vendor and based upon the same, the prosecution was launched by instituting a complaint under the Act of 1954, which could not be made a basis for proceeding under the Act of 1954 against the Directors and Officers of the company and these aspects of the case has also not been considered by the Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court in its true spirit.

7. It is to be noted that the opposite party no. 2, Sri Upendra Singh, Food Inspector who instituted the complaint had died during the pendency of the present petition, and in connection to the same, this Court passed the order dated 25.03.2025, according to which substitution of legal heirs of respondent no. 2 is not required in the matter. Obviously when the complaint was filed, the opposite party no. 2 was discharging the duties of the post of Food Inspector.

8. It is to be noted that no counter affidavit has been filed by the State in response to the present petition. Learned AGA has opposed the present petition by making oral submissions. However he could not dispute the contentions of the counsel for the petitioners.

9. Considering the aforesaid including the relevant statutory provisions including Section 17 of the Act of 1954, this Court is of the view that the Courts concerned have not considered the facts and law on the issue in its true spirit and as such this court is of the view that the instant petition is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed.

10. The matter is remanded back to the Magistrate, who shall pass an order (reasoned and speaking) afresh. December 4, 2025 Anurag (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Badrul Hasan, learned AGA for the State.

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Criminal Procedure