Dismissed

Ram Nath Bajpai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2019CRLR/790/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed against conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Court held that despite the revisionist's absence, the revision could not be dismissed in default per Santosh and must be decided on merits, leading to affirmation of the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

Conviction order affirmed; stay order if any vacated.

Ram Nath Bajpai Vs State of U.P. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 790 of 2003

¶3

Revisionist :- Ram Nath Bajpai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- C.M. Rai,A. Lal,T.K. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

List has been revised. None appeared on behalf of revisionist.

¶6

As per report dated 12.02.2019 of C.J.M., Kanpur Nagar, there is no whereabouts of the revisionist.

¶7

I have heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

The criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2002 passed by Special Judge, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 10/1996 (M/s Malik Puria Brothers and others Vs. State of U.P.) dismissing the appeal up-holding the conviction under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, recorded by Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic of Offences) dated 12.03.1996 in Criminal Case No. 901/1993 (State of U.P. Vs. Chanan Singh and Others) Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, sentencing the accused/applicant 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine with Rs. 1000/-.

¶9

Since the revision is very old but the same cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution. In the case of Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that after admission of criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing the same in default and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default but it has to be decided on merit, so, this revision is decided according to its merit.

¶10

Grounds taken by the revisionist in this revision are that sanctioning authority acted mechanically and not applied its mind, while granting the alleged sanction, therefore, the sanction is bad in law; that no sample has been taken from the shop or go-down of the firm, and therefore, no prosecution can be launched against the firm also; that the trial court does not call the partners of the firm M/s Malik Puria Brothers when it

¶11

found guilty and at the time if quantum of sentence the partners of M/s Malik Puria Brothers must be summoned to enquire under Section 17 P.F.A. Act and convict accordingly; that the procedure adopted by the trial court is warrant trial not the summary way as given in 16-A P.F.A. Act; that no notice under section 13(2) of P.F.A. Act was served on the accused/applicant or on firm; that compliance of Rules 44 of P.F.A. Act has been done by the prosecution; that court below has erred in law holding that the accused/applicant is guilty of offence; that judgment and order passed by court below are wholly illegal, unjustified, perverse as well as bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

¶12

Having heard learned A.G.A. and perusal of the record shows that there is no irregularity or illegality in the orders dated 17.12.2002 and 12.03.1996 passed by court below. Court below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and after full appreciation of fact convicted the revisionist. Hence criminal revision is being devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed accordingly.

¶13

Criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Conviction order passed by court below is affirmed.

¶15

Stay order, if any, stands vacated.

¶16

A copy of this order be communicated to the court below for necessary compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.3.2019 Vibha Singh

Ram Nath Bajpai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nath Bajpai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sagar Singh Patel Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Shanti Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shyam Lal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Bhagwati Prasad Vs State of U.P.