PREM NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. for the State. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this application in revision is being disposed of finally at this stage.

(2.) It is indisputed that the date on which the revisionist's establishment was raided The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 had been enforced and hence the complaint filed against the revisionist by opposite party no. 2 under The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not maintainable. It is further not in dispute that the revisionist's premises was raided on 29.7.2010 and the complaint was filed against him on 26.10.2010 under Section 7 / 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the Court of A. C. J. M., Ist, Mirzapur and cognizance was taken by the court below vide order dated 26.10.2010.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order by which the court below has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned the revisionist 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.