KESHAV MOHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant in revision and learned A.G.A. for the State. With the consent of the partie Counsel, this revision is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 15 -3 -2001 passed by A.C.J.M. 1st Allahabad in Case No. 713 of 2001 -State v. Pappu and another, under Section 16 (1) (c), 7(1) and Rule 50(1) of the Preven ­tion of Food Adulteration Act. It is stated in the affidavit that the applicant came to know of the impugned order on 23 -7 -2001 and thereafter he applied for certified copy and filed this revision on 8 -8 -2001. Ac ­cording to the learned Counsel for the applicant the revision is within time from the date of knowledge of the impugned order. It is well -settled that period of limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the order. The revision is thus treated as within time.

(3.) IN the present case the Court finds that Nagar Swasihya Adhikari by the order dated 22 -2 -2001 has granted sanction to prosecute the applicant in revision for contravention of provisions of Section 7 read with Rule 50 (1) punishable under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. There is no written consent or sanction of Nagar Swas ­thya Adhikari to prosecute the applicant in revision under Section 7 read with Sec ­tion 16 (1) (c) of the Act for which the applicant has been summoned by the learned Magistrate. The instant prosecu ­tion of the applicant is on its face value illegal. Accordingly, the summoning order as well as the proceedings pending against the applicant before the learned Magistrate arc quashed.