KRISHNAGOPAL RAGHUNATHPRASAD Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 3rd April 2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 36 of 2014, only to the extent of remanding criminal complaint to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli for fresh hearing/consideration and further prayed to allow the criminal revision filed by the petitioners in toto.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the present petitioners. It is contention of the petitioners that the Learned CJM, Sangli erroneously issued the process against the present petitioners without considering the fact that the prima facie case is not made out against the present petitioners. On 15.03.2014 summons were issued to the petitioners. On 30.04.2014 petitioners preferred a Criminal Revision Application challenging the aforesaid order of issuing process passed by the Ld. CJM, Sangli issuing process against the petitioners. On 03.04.2018 the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge although set aside the impugned order dated 16.06.2011 thereby issuing process against the petitioners, however, remanded the said criminal proceeding back to the Ld. CJM, Sangli for reconsideration on the point of issuing process. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submit that, when the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli held that the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal and not maintainable in the eyes of law, the Sessions Court could not have remanded the matter back to the Ld. CJM to reconsider the issuance of process. It is submitted that the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that even otherwise the complaint was lodged by the present Respondent No. 1 after expiry of validity of the collected sample and due to this reason the right of the petitioners as contemplated under section 13 (2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is frustrated and on this count alone the said complaint deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that, the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, failed to appreciate that, prima facie it reflects that the public analysis report does not disclosed the sample collected is unfit for human consumption, and there is no documentary evidence about the receipt of the sample by the public analysis. So also the proforma sent for approval is not correct. On said ground also the criminal complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside and no "issue process" order would have been passed by the Ld. CJM, Sangli. It is further submitted that, the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the said criminal complaint itself was not filed by the Food Inspector who had collected the said samples and even the list of the witnesses was also not given. In such circumstances the said criminal complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that, the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that even otherwise the prima facie reading of the said criminal complaint does not disclose any role of the present petitioners so as to come to a conclusion that they have committed the offences as alleged in the said complaint and on this count also the said complaint deserves to be set aside.