CHAIR RAM Vs. STATE OF CG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on admission.

(2.) THIS is an application filed under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 20.10.2005 passed in Criminal Revision No.402/2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). It appears that the aforesaid Criminal Revision was filed against the order dated 17.9.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund in Criminal Case No. 472/2003. It also appears that the Criminal case under Section 7(1), 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act is pending against the petitioners in the aforesaid Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund. A perusal of para 2 of the impugned order would show that on 5/12/2001, the petitioners were informed that if they desire to send the second sample of turmeric for its analysis to the Central Laboratory, they may do the needful within a period of 10 days. Para 6 of the order would show that in compliance of the aforesaid, on 14/12/2001 an application was failed by the petitioners and the requisite fee for the same was deposited by them on 21/12/2001 through the demand draft and it was prayed that the sample be sent for analysis to the Central Laboratory. When they came to know that no sample has been sent for analysis to the Central Laboratory till date, they filed an application on 23/10/2003 for not continuing the proceedings pending in relation to the prosecution in terms of Sub-Section (2D) of Section 13 of the aforesaid Act. The prosecution took time to file reply of this application. However, on 17.9.2004 the learned Magistrate passed the orders in following terms : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_147_CGLJ3_2006img1.jpg</IMG> This is the order which was challenged before the Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Criminal Revision and confirmed the order passed by the Magistrate. It appears to me that the Magistrate has not taken any action on the application filed for not continuing the proceedings of the prosecution filed under Section 13 (2D) of the said Act and keeping that application aside, this order dated 17.9.2004 has been passed for issuance of memo to the concerned authority for providing sample to the Court so that further course of action may be decided. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since an application under Section 13 (2D) was filed by the petitioners for closing the case of the prosecution, in other words, for discharging them looking to the long unattended pendency of the case, the Magistrate was not justified in passing an order dated 17.9.2004 regarding production of the sample. Her further submission is that instead of passing such an order, the Magistrate should have either discharged the accused persons or he should have stayed the proceedings in terms of Section 13(2D) of the Act. As stated by learned counsel for the applicants in fact, the Magistrate has not taken any action on the application filed under Section 13(2D) of the Act and by keeping that application in abeyance, he has passed this order for production of sample. So far as the order dated 17/9/2004, is concerned, there appears to be no irregularity in calling the sample from the concerned authority. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. However, it is observed that if the application filed under Section 13 (2D) dated 23/10/2003 is till unattended by the concerned Court, the Magistrate shall take immediate action on this application and shall dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions laid down under Section 13(2A) to 13 (2D) of the said Act. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed with observation.