Allahabad High Court
Harishchandra Maheshwari vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64652 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13099 of 2025 Applicant :- Harishchandra Maheshwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary,Himanshu Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned counsel for opposite parties.
3. This Court on 21.04.2025 proceeded to pass the following orders:
"1. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that a perusal of the summoning order, which is dated 20.09.2024 is cryptic and it has been passed in mechanical manner without application of mind. He seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s J.M. Laboratories vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5067 of 2024, decided on 30.01.2025.
2. Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned A.G.A. seeks time to obtain instructions, as he submits that he would also be appeared for the Food Safety Officer.
3. Put up this case on 25.04.2025 at 02:00 P.M. as fresh."
4. Though a counter affidavit has been filed by the State and learned counsel for the applicant does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
5. This application under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.3869/2024 (State vs. Harishchandra Maheshwari), under Sections 26(2), (i), (ii)/51, 59 of Food Safety & Standard Act, 2006, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the District Food Safety Officer, District Aligarh had inspected the premises of the applicant firm M/s. Tirupati Oil Expeller on 06.11.2023 at about 3.00 PM and found that the applicant was manufacturing and packaging mustard oil and on asking , the licence of the manufacturing was shown and on further inspection, a container having 200 liters of mustard oil was found. The Food Safety Officer, District Aligarh had taken the specimen/ samples of the mustard oil and packed and sealed in four containers/ plastic bottles for the purposes of testing. The independent persons/ public witnesses were asked to sign the recovery memo but they refused and after the testing by the Government Public Analyst Laboratory, Lucknow, it was found that the sample did not confirm to the standard of mustard oil with respect to peroxide value and test for rancidity was found positive. Thereafter, a complaint stood lodged on 20.09.2024 which resulted in the summoning of the applicants under Section 26(2), (i), (ii)/51, 59 of Food Safety & Standard Act, 2006.
7. Questioning the said order, the applicant has been filed the present application.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has though submitted that there are several grounds of attacking the summoning order but the sheet anchor is the fact that the summoning order is cryptic in nature as it has been passed in a routine manner on mere asking without application of mind being totally non-speaking. He seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 5067 of 2020 (M/s. J.M. Laboratories and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.) decided on 30.01.2025. He further argues that with the enforcement of the BNSS, 2023, the applicant ought to have been put to notice before taking cognizance. However, he submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.
9. Shri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul has countered the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, however, he submits that from the perusal of the summoning order dated 20.09.2024, it appears that the same has not been passed in correct perspective as discussion and the prima facie ingredients are also missing. He submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.
10. Learned AGA submits that once this is the stand of the counsel for the opposite party no. 2 then he has no objection in that regard.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
12. Looking into the judgment in the case of M/s. J.M. Laboratories and Ors. (supra), the Court finds that the summoning order is a non-speaking order wherein sufficiency and satisfaction of a prima facie case is not appearing, however, looking into the nature of the order and the fitness of the matter the summoning order dated 20.09.2024 is set aside.
13. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
14. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 09.05.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.
15. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case.
16. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.4.2025 A. Prajapati