Disposed

Harshit Vaish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2024A482/3600/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge order in an application challenging the cognizance under Sections 52 and 59 of the Food Safety Act, 2006. Issues raised regarding jurisdiction, validity of prosecution sanction due to delay, and bar under Section 77. Order stayed the summoning order and listed the case.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the impugned summoning and cognizance order dated 13.09.2023. Issued notice to respondent No.2. Listed the case.

Harshit Vaish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3600 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Harshit Vaish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Pandey,Asim Kumar Singh,Tripti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-respondent.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned magistrate whereby the cognizance has been taken of the offence under Section 52 as well as Section 59 of the Food Safety Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") is without jurisdiction. The magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 52 of the Act which provides penalty for misbranded food and contravention of this case is adjudicated under Section 52(ii) of the Act by the appropriate adjudicating officer and not by the court whereas, the offence under Section 59 of the Act is tried by the court hence the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 is liable to be set aside.

¶7

The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution sanction has been granted by the Commissioner, Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, U.P., Lucknow vide its order dated 24.07.2023 without recording any reasons and without condoning the delay. The offence was committed on 08.03.2022 and the impugned complaint has been filed on 12.09.2022 before the learned magistrate. There is delay of more than six months to file the impugned complaint before the learned Magistrate however, while taking cognizance learned magistrate has overlooked the fact that compliant has been filed before it beyond the period of one year. Section 77 of the Act provides that no court shall take cognizance of offence beyond the period of one year from the date of commission of offence hence on this ground the cognizance and summoning order is bad as it is in contravention to the provisions of Section 77 of the Act.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

Prima facie matter requires consideration.

¶10

Let notice be issued to respondent No.2.

¶11

In the meantime, the impugned summoning and cognizance order dated 13.09.2023 contained in Annexure no.1 and passed in Complaint Case no.111155/2023 shall remain stayed.

¶12

List this case on 08.07.2024.

¶13

Order Date :- 26.4.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harshit Vaish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshit Vaish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharamveer Singh Rathor Vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply and 2 Others

Mira Pushdha @ Mira Devi Pushdha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Bal Vikash/Pustahar Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rural Development Lko.

Shanti and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. and Others

Sunita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar Lko. and Others

Tulsiram Nishad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others