RADHYESHYAM Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the applicant seeks to challenge the order made by the Sessions Judge, Raipur refusing to entertain the application for revision under Sec. 397 of the Code Criminal Procedure 1973 against the applicant for the offences punishable under sections 7(1) and 16(1) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge refused to entertain the application on the ground that the order impugned was an interlocutory order and no revision could lie against such order as provided in sub section (2) of Sec. 397. Being aggrieved by that the applicant approached this Court seeking interference by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code.

(3.) After hearing the counsel for the applicant and on going through the record, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for interference. The charge framed by the Magistrate is based on sufficient evidence making out a prima facie case. The report of the Public Analyst has been produced disclosing that the sample of mustard oil sent for analysing was adulterated. Evidence has been led to prima facie establish that the sample was taken in compliance of the rules. The matter is however, yet to be further tried by the Trial Court.