Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Dhamija vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 August, 2014
Bench: Ranjana Pandya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1650 of 2014
Revisionist :- Om Prakash Dhamija
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Raj Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 966 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 184 of 2011, police station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
Brief facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged by Food Inspector Rajeev Kumar Verma stating that on 05.04.2011 that his son Viresh had purchased 1 kg kuttu atta on 04.04.2011 in the evening. His daughter-in-law cooked the atta and his son Viresh, daughter-in-law Kunti and daughters Minakshi and Aarti ate the food and got sick. On this information, the Food Inspector along with other employees went to the shop of Sunil Kumar at railway road and seized kuttu atta. The packing date was as written 12.10.2011, which was mentioned which was done to take undue advantage and undue profit. The remaining kuttu was destroyed and report was lodged. During the course of investigation, some sections were dropped because according to the analyst report, kuttu atta was not found adulterated, but charge sheet was submitted under sections 420, 468 IPC.
The revisionist moved a discharge application before the lower court praying that since the main allegation against him was selling adulterated food, which according to the analyst report was not found adulterated, hence he may be discharged. The learned lower court on the discharge application passed the order dated 11.04.2014 and dismissed the application.
I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
Perusal of the order under revision shows that the learned lower court found that the charge sheet has been submitted under sections 420, 468 IPC and the court has taken cognizance on 30.06.2011. Rajeev Kumar Verma, the Food Inspector has stated to the Investigating Officer that the date of packing was mentioned to be 12.10.2011, which would come after six months, hence the date mentioned on the packing was anti-dated.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that since the main sections have been dropped, there was no occasion to proceed the case against the revisionist under sections 420, 468 IPC. He has further argued that when it came to the notice that the date of packing has wrongly been mentioned, he had given a notice in the newspapers that the date of packing has wrongly been typed. This was not looked into and discussed by the court below.
In 2011 (72) ACC 770 Santosh Kumar Yadav and others vs State of U.P. and another, it has been laid down that if there is ingredients of offence against the accused, charge should be framed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010 (1) ACR (SC), P. Vijayan vs State of Kerala and another, has laid down that whether the materials at the hands of the prosecution are sufficient or not are matters for trial. At the stage of charge, it cannot be claimed that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and discharge is only remedy.
The disputed question of fact or the defence of the accused would not be considered by the Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The defence of the accused also cannot be looked into at this stage as it is premature.
Hence, I find the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and the revision is liable to be dismissed at summary stage.
The revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.8.2014
Sazia
