(1.) Mr. Harsh Kumar, J.. - Heard Shri Umesh Chandra Kesarwani, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Shri Ram Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned summoning order dated 25.08.2011 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 6378 of 2011 (N.S.A. v. Avinash Chandra Bajpai and another) under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order of cognizance is wrong and illegal; that the sample of Chhola/Chana Masala (Bhola Indis) is alleged to have been taken from the shop of revisionist on 9.2.2011 on the basis of which complaint under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been filed against him and the learned Magistrate has acted wrongly in taking cognizance on the criminal complaint under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 inspite of the fact that Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been repealed w.e.f. 29.7.2010 vide notification in Extraordinary Gazette of India, copy at annexure-2; that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 has come into force w.e.f. 29.7.2010 and after repeal of old Act i.e., Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the complaint under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not maintainable and no cognizance could have been taken by the Magistrate under the old and already repealed Act; that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence against revisionist in absolutely cryptic manner by non-speaking order, without due application of mind to the facts of case and legal position; that the cognizance was taken under the provisions of the old Act which had already been repealed.