Allahabad High Court
Raju vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35769 of 2022 Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
By means of this Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed to quash the summoning order dated 04.01.2022 in Complaint Case No.96/2022 (Food Inspector Vs. Raju) under Section 26/51 and 59(i) F.S.S. Act, 2006, Police Station Marehara, District Etah, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Etah.
From the perusal of record, it is found that as per the report of food analyst the sample of refined soyabean oil, taken from the possession of the applicant did not confirm the standard of refined soyabean oil with respect to Saponification value, Iodine value, acid value & non permitted synthetic colour butter yellow was also present, which is harmful for human consumption and thus in this report sample is found to be substandard and unsafe.
Though, it is said that regarding the same cause of action another Complaint No.455 of 2022 was filed and on the application under 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant got the relief from this Court and an order of 'no coercive action' has been passed therein. In my opinion, even if wrongly a second complaint was filed on the same facts and regarding the same sample, in that case the applicant has got relief by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2022 passed on Application U/S 482 No. 18461 of 2022. But as per the present complaint which is the first complaint the sample does not confirm the standard of refined soyabean oil. The report of food analyst dated 18.02.2021 is placed before the Court. The applicant has been summoned by the trial court to face trial under Section 26/51 and 59(i) F.S.S. Act, 2006. The order of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity on the face of it. In my opinion, there is no ground to quash the summoning order passed against the applicant The present applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Radhika