Siraj Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4960 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6055 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Siraj Ahmad
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Purushottam Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

Heard Mr. Purushottam Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that based on the same facts and almost same set of evidence, the applicant was prosecuted under Section 272 and 273 I.P.C. and tried before the learned Sessions Judge vide S.T. No. 484 of 2011, whereby they have been acquitted giving them the benefit of doubt vide judgment and order dated 03.10.2016. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that now trying the applicant on the same set of facts relating to the same recovery for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 would be an abuse of process of Court.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer to admit this application to hearing.

On a consideration of the submissions made, this Court is of opinion that the act constituting the offences under Sections 272, 273 I.P.C. and Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act may be the same but the offences are distinct and different. The ingredients of the offence are also different. The offences in both cases can by no means be the same. Also, the prosecution has to lead separate evidence at the trial of the present complaint than that led in support of the trial before the Sessions Judge while prosecuting the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 272 and 273 I.P.C. The fact that the applicant has been granted the benefit of doubt by the learned Sessions Judge does leave space for the prosecution to adduce evidence that may merit trial. In this view of the matter, there is no force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant.

The other contentions raised are disputed questions of fact which this Court cannot determine in our jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There is no abuse of process of Court involved.

In the circumstances, this application fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 6.6.2022

Brijesh Maurya