RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.80/2003 by Additional Sessions Judge Karera, Distt. Shivpuri, on 29.10.2005, whereby by setting aside the judgment dated 14.4.03 passed by ACJM, Karera, in Criminal Case No.60/96 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, the matter was remanded with a direction to the learned ACJM that after affording opportunities to the parties charge be amended and complainant's witness Ram Huzur be summoned after charge and if the prosecution wishes to call any other witness, it may do so and the case be disposed of expeditiously.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are that

(3.) It is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court is against the settled principles of law and liable to be set aside. Remanding the matter after about 10 years for filling up the lacuna is illegal. It is further submitted that the learned Appellate Court had not considered the grounds taken by the petitioner in appeal. The petitioner is entitled for the acquittal. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court has committed error. It is further submitted that Food Inspector, Ram Huzur Shrivastava has not appeared before the Appellate Court only PW-2 and PW-3 have been cross-examined by the petitioner. The learned Court has closed the evidence. Thus the right has been acquired in favour of the petitioner which has been denied by the Appellate Court by remanding the matter. It is further submitted that the prosecution sanction has also not been legally proved. It is prayed that impugned order be set aside and appellant/ petitioner be acquitted.